Highgate man sues Homebase over Enfield land deal 'fraud'

Eugene Lebedenko claims he was kicked off the land in Enfield months later by the true owner and he lost tens of thousands of pounds in a trespass case.

But Homebase insists the agent Mr Lebedenko went through was not authorised to act on its behalf – and that it cannot be pursued for money since it declared itself insolvent in 2018.

• MOST READ: Brothers return to Enfield to recreate childhood photo 70 years later

Mr Lebedenko, of Highgate, is suing Homebase and property agent Access Point for alleged losses totalling £135,000.

“The chain of events has turned out to be nothing short of calamitous for my client,” Mr Lebedenko’s barrister Max Myers told Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court on Wednesday (March 22).

“My client is in no way to blame,” he added, calling Mr Lebedenko’s treatment “extraordinarily unjust”.

The lawsuit accuses HHGL Limited (Homebase) and Access Point of acting “fraudulently”.

Both companies deny that and any liability.

Eugene Lebedenko said he had to spend more than £10,000 just to clear the site up before he could start using it (Image: Eugene Lebedenko)

The Land

Mr Lebedenko claims his firm, Tree Work Solutions, signed an agreement with Access Point in May 2015 to use land outside the since-closed Homebase New Southgate store in Station Road, Enfield.

He planned to use the site to recycle green waste into wood for carpentry and biomass fuel.

He alleges that the arrangement came about after he consulted a manager at the store, who referred him to Access Point.

Mr Lebedenko says Access Point stated in emails that Homebase's head office had "agreed" and "authorised" the deal.

But, he alleges, Homebase did not have the authority to do so.

Five months after he signed the deal, the actual owner ordered Mr Lebedenko off the site and sued him for trespass, which he says cost him £25,000.

Eugene Lebedenko claims the deal was struck after he approached a manager at Homebase New Southgate, which has since closed (Image: Google Streetview)

Companies at odds

Access Point said in its defence statement, filed in March 2022, that it “acted at all material times as the agent of and upon the instructions of [Homebase].”

“[Homebase] instructed [Access Point Ltd] to provide a licence,” it claims.

But Homebase said the opposite.

“[Access Point Ltd] has not been the agent of [Homebase] in any relevant sense at the material time,” its defence statement, also filed in March 2022, said.

Homebase also argues that Tree Work Solutions cannot legally pursue it due to an insolvency process - called a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) - which took place in 2018.

In court on Wednesday, Homebase’s barrister James Shaw asked District Judge Sara Beecham to strike out the case on that basis.

A pre-trial hearing in Mr Lebedenko's case was held at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court in Gee Street on Wednesday, March 22 (Image: Charles Thomson)

He said that even if the claimant was unaware of Homebase's CVA – which Mr Lebedenko claims was the case – the fact that it happened bars any further creditors from pursuing claims.

“The fact that the claimant only found that out upon receipt of the defence doesn’t change that problem for them,” he said. “That, we say, is the end of the matter.”

“Absurd”

Mr Myers, for Tree Work Solutions, countered that Mr Shaw’s interpretation of the law was “absurd”.

He said his client had first notified Homebase of its intention to sue in 2016, yet Homebase appeared not to have notified the firm of the subsequent CVA.

“How could we possibly comply with definitions set out within the CVA when we had no knowledge of it?” he asked.

He said Mr Shaw’s interpretation of insolvency law would allow “an unscrupulous debtor” to conduct a CVA, conceal it from a creditor and use that get out of paying them.

“The manifest injustice of that scenario, and the absurdity of it, speaks for itself,” he said.

Eugene Lebedenko, sole director of Tree Work Solutions, has brought the lawsuit, seeking £135,000 from the two defendants (Image: Charles Thomson)

Mr Myers added that Homebase had failed to turn over key documents about the CVA, which he found “highly suspicious”.

“They are conspicuous by their absence, to put it mildly,” he argued.

“Bound to fail”

But Mr Shaw maintained that the law was “simple” and clearly barred any further claims after a CVA.

He argued: “They are hoping that disclosure will come through which shows that they are right – that they didn’t have notice, that we concealed it from them and that there was a material irregularity. To which, we say, so what?”

Mr Shaw told Judge Beecham that the law on CVAs meant Mr Lebedenko’s case was “bound to fail”.

“You might think that’s regrettable, but that’s the consequence of the insolvency process,” he said.

A decision on the strike-out application is due after Easter.