If you happen to represent the Landlords or anybody else related and were writing me to engage in meaningful negotiation, you could mark your written message as "without prejudice" and as long as you are making a good faith effort, I (and most judges) would respect that privilege and I would not use it against you in court. However, if you use it either as a disguise for insults, or if your intent is obviously not to negotiate, I will consider that a willful relinquishing of the requested protections. For example, if you try to settle a matter simply by sending a list of demands, with nothing in return other than your crystal ball prediction you will win in court, that cannot possibly be considered, in my view, privileged communication; likewise, if you serve me documents that will be filed in court with an affidavit of service, that cannot be considered Without Prejudice. For more on "without prejudice":
Writing about the conflict in Ukraine, the Economist explains in Putin's Inferno:
CIVIL strife often follows a grimly predictable pattern. What at first seems a soluble dispute hardens into conflict, as goals become more radical, bitterness accumulates and the chance to broker a compromise is lost.
This is why I always make a strong effort in the beginning of a conflict to find a negotiated settlement. It's not because I perceive myself to be in a position of weakness (I always do my best to be truthful and lawful), but rather because the more effort I put into defending my rights, the less likely I am to compromise. I do not respond well to threats, by which I mean that though I usually ignore them, they motivate me to defend harder.
It is important for parties to a conflict to be able to engage in negotiations without posturing and lies, as that can lead to a mutually agreeable outcome, whereas if they know that can be used against them, they are less likely to make concession and compromise. That's what "without prejudice" is supposed to help with.