A man risks losing his house after the council sold by mistake 700 000 £ flat and half price

A landlord was told to pay £ 360,000 or lose his house – after the council wrongly sold him a £ 700,000 half-price apartment.

The 54-year-old father Antony Zomparelli bought his two-bed apartment on the Borough Council of Islington for £ 340,000 in 2014.

But he was stunned two years later when the council wrote to him confessing that they had inadvertently underloaded him – as they thought the house had only one night. bedroom.

Security guard Antony, who has four children, could not afford the difference – and the council is now suing him.

Local authorities want to recover the property from his apartment or the money they claim to owe.

Only Antony, who lives alone in the second floor apartment, claims that the "unforgivable" mistake has reigned since then and that he is preparing for a fight in court later this year.

He claims that he would never have bought the house if it was on the market at £ 700,000 – and think the board is not allowed to DOUBLE the price on a 6 sqm piece .

He said: "I would never have bought the property if I had known it would cost £ 700,000.This would never have crossed my mind.

"How can they expect me to pay, it ruined my life, I can not function as a normal person or think straight."

"It caused me depression and I had to see a doctor.

"This has put a strain on my relationships with friends and family.I've been in the land since I got the first letter.

"I could not believe it, I do not understand how they can do that, it seems impossible.

"They clearly made a huge mistake and it's not my fault."

Antony has lived in the Chadwell Street apartment in Islington since 2001 and originally rented it to the board.

He bought it from the authorities as part of the Right To Buy program in 2013 and, because he had been living there for so long, he benefited from a £ 102,700 reduction.

The board badessed it at £ 340,000 in August 2013 and he got a mortgage of £ 237,300 – for the amount remaining after the reduction – in 2014.

Previously, he paid £ 125 per week rent, but is currently paying about £ 1,800 of mortgage repayments.

But two years later, in 2016, Antony received a shocking letter from City Council explaining the mistake and claiming the remaining £ 360,000.

The board admitted that it valued the home as a bed in an "office" badessment – a way to value a property or business using existing information.

In legal documents, Antony – via lawyer Peter Felton of Feltons Law – alleges that this is due to an error in the "computerized records" of the board.

But before the sale took place, Antony claims that an independent expert conducted a site survey of the apartment.

The room in question is a "storage room" and Antony claims that this was mentioned in his lease, established by the board.

The board says that the security guard, Antony, was "unfairly enriched" by the apparent fault of the administrator.

In a letter to Antony in March 2016, the board explained when a public body "operates outside its jurisdiction, its decision is void".

The letter included the board's admission that "it did not have the power to dispose of the premises at a value lower than that based on the market value".

As a result, the council has the right to recover the funds, "as restitution for unjust enrichment," said the letter.

The lawyers acting on behalf of the board attempted to settle outside the court and offered Antony to agree on the terms of the "restoring balance" of the purchase price.

But the two sides did not reach an agreement, and in a letter addressed to Antony in October 2017, an ultimatum was sent to him: to accept to pay or to engage a legal battle.

The court documents prepared for the proceedings indicate that the council has the obligation to recover the missing £ 360,000 because they exceeded their legal powers by granting the lease at an underestimated price.

In a letter, sent in October 2017, the board offered Antony a final 14 day window to settle the dispute outside of a court proceeding, and cautioned to file a lawsuit against him. he still refused to pay.

Both parties have prepared court documents but the date of commencement of the proceedings has not yet been confirmed.

Antony, worried, said: "Until 2016, everything was fine.I've heard about it for the first time when the board sent me a rather aggressive letter.

"It is even said" we understand that this letter can cause you grief ".

"They told me by letter that my property had been undervalued and that we had to resolve the £ 360,000 that I owe them now.

"Even my lawyer said that he had no idea of ​​the result.

"I do not know how they can justify asking for even more money.This has always been a twin apartment.This was never a single bed apartment.

"It's really crazy, they have doubled the price of a property based on a storeroom."

Antony says that he is the "victim" of an administrative error and that he is "punished" for something that escapes his control.

The board and Antony must begin court proceedings in Clerkenwell County and Shoreditch County courts, but are waiting to be confirmed at a later date.

Antony has sought the help of lawyers for the upcoming legal battle and says that he is "categorical", he will keep his home.

Christopher Royal, Antony 's defense attorney, states that there has been no report of a case where a former landlord allegedly claimed damages from the former tenant due to the fact that the property was damaged. undervaluation.

But the owner fears even if he wins in court, he will have to sell his apartment to pay the legal bill – which, in his opinion, could reach £ 60,000.

He said: "No matter what happens, I will have to sell the property to pay my legal fees.

"If I win, I get my lawyer's fees, but I have to pay a fee for my lawyer and my mortgage company.

"I probably will not be able to live in London anymore, I will be bankrupt if I lose."

Antony says that he made the decision to buy the apartment for the benefit of his children and wanted to make sure he "leaves them a legacy" in London.

He said: "I was not surprised at the price when I bought it, it was the first time I bought a property, so it seemed like a lot of money.

"I wanted to get on the property ladder for my kids and I was really happy.

"I wanted to make my children's lives easier when they want a home.

"I thought it was strange to see how they rated it on a computer, but I was sure it was normal.

"The effect on me was incredible, he governed my life for four years.

"I do not wish to never have bought it." I had a lot of satisfaction.

"The most unfair thing is that I will lose the property anyway even if I win.I can not understand, even if I win, I know I will always lose."

Mirror Online has contacted the Borough Council of Islington for comments.