Definitely not too petty, I totally agree with you and if getting involved in this stuff has taught me anything, it's that thoroughness is important. I think we just have different understanding of the root issue (which isn't super clear from the story). In your view:
There has been no refusal to extend the lease there has simply been a disagreement on the premium to be paid.
But my understanding was:
"The trust will not grant an extension or sell the freeholds"
I may be oversimplifying but to me that's a refusal to extend / enfranchise, which is a potential breach, and any refusal to follow the law (or disagreement over what constitutes the law) should per my understanding go to the Tribunal for resolution. And that's when the trust would do well to be reasonable - which they don't seem to be being at the moment.
Tho I may have missed some of the subsequent posts (flying about a bit this weekend) so may be missing some nuance.
Definitely not too petty, I totally agree with you and if getting involved in this stuff has taught me anything, it's that thoroughness is important. I think we just have different understanding of the root issue (which isn't super clear from the story). In your view:
But my understanding was:
I may be oversimplifying but to me that's a refusal to extend / enfranchise, which is a potential breach, and any refusal to follow the law (or disagreement over what constitutes the law) should per my understanding go to the Tribunal for resolution. And that's when the trust would do well to be reasonable - which they don't seem to be being at the moment.
Tho I may have missed some of the subsequent posts (flying about a bit this weekend) so may be missing some nuance.