Practical advice on forfeiture – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Practical advice on forfeiture – Hardwicke Chambers

You’ve lost that loving Ealing (Sorry) – Nearly Legal

‘Ealing’s allocation policy has already had lawfulness problems, compounded by Ealing’s unlawful refusal to do anything about that unlawfulness. But this judicial review of the policy was on a different basis and confirms a whole fresh ground of unlawfulness.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 27th April 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on You’ve lost that loving Ealing (Sorry) – Nearly Legal

Saving the bank’s security after it is too late… – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in banking, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news, setting aside by sally

‘It is a requirement of the court rules that when a landlord seeks to forfeit a residential lease by issuing a claim in court, that claim must be served on a mortgagee. The purpose of this provision is to make sure that the bank is able to apply for relief from forfeiture (and hence reinstate its security) before it is too late. But what happens if the bank is served with the claim, the tenant and the bank do not attend the hearing, the lease is forfeited and the possession order subsequently enforced with the result that title is closed and the bank loses its security?’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 21st April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Saving the bank’s security after it is too late… – Tanfield Chambers

Can lenders avoid cost budgeting? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in banking, costs, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Is it possible for lenders to avoid the courts’ enthusiasm for managing costs of litigation?’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 20th April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Can lenders avoid cost budgeting? – Tanfield Chambers

Moorjani v Durban Estates – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in appeals, damages, housing, landlord & tenant, leases, news, repairs by sally

‘Housing practitioners are familiar with the routine claim for disrepair in respect of short-life tenancies. However, such claims are rarely encountered with long residential leases and whilst they are unlikely to raise any particular problems with liability, they may do so as regards causation and the quantification of damages. This can be seen by considering the two main types of damage sustained.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Moorjani v Durban Estates – Tanfield Chambers

VAT and service charges: indivisible or not indivisible-is that the question? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in appeals, landlord & tenant, news, service charges, tribunals, VAT by sally

‘This article gives consideration of the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Janine Ingram v Church Commissioners for England [2015] UKUT.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on VAT and service charges: indivisible or not indivisible-is that the question? – Tanfield Chambers

Replacing carpets owned by landlord was not breach of repair clause, says Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com

Posted April 25th, 2016 in appeals, damages, interpretation, landlord & tenant, leases, news, repairs by sally

‘A commercial property tenant did not breach repair covenants set out in the lease when it replaced carpet tiles in the property with strip carpeting, the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court’s decision.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st April 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Replacing carpets owned by landlord was not breach of repair clause, says Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com

Deposits, leaflets and company landlords – Nearly Legal

Posted April 19th, 2016 in appeals, deposits, documents, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

‘This was an appeal of a possession order made against Mr Bali at Lambeth County Court. Mr B was the assured shorthold tenant of Manaquel Company Limited. A deposit was taken and protected. Manaquel subsequently purportedly served a section 21 notice and brought possession proceedings. At first instance, the issue was whether Manaquel had complied with the requirements on serving the Prescribed Information.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 18th April 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Deposits, leaflets and company landlords – Nearly Legal

The Landlord’s intention under the 1954 Act – Falcon Chambers

Posted April 14th, 2016 in appeals, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which confers security of tenure on business tenants, is perhaps one of the most widely used and best understood pieces of legislation in the field of property litigation. It is therefore relatively rare for those provisions to be considered at the level of the Court of Appeal.’

Full story

Falcon Chambers, 3rd March 2016

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Comments Off on The Landlord’s intention under the 1954 Act – Falcon Chambers

The impact of new consumer regulations – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted April 13th, 2016 in consumer protection, contracts, drafting, EC law, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘On 1 October 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) came into force. CRA superseded the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). The CRA aims to modernise, simplify and consolidate key parts of consumer law; it is the cornerstone of an extensive consumer law reform programme. Anyone acting in a landlord and tenant dispute or drafting tenancy or lease agreement needs to be familiar with its provisions’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 11th March 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on The impact of new consumer regulations – Hardwicke Chambers

When an unsafe structure does not trigger the landlord’s duty to repair – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The reach of the Defective Premises Act and what ‘defective’ means within the context of the Act, was the subject of detailed consideration in the QBD recently, in Dodd v Raebarn Estates [2016].’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th March 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on When an unsafe structure does not trigger the landlord’s duty to repair – Hardwicke Chambers

Commercial Landlord & Tenant Law – New Square Chambers

‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Commercial Landlord & Tenant Law – New Square Chambers

Ten new laws that come into force in April 2016 – and how they affect you – The Independent

‘April 2016 is a month of big changes for people living and working in the UK. A number of new laws and policies are coming into force, affecting just about everyone from public sector workers to dog owners. Here’s what the new laws could mean for you.’

Full story

The Independent, 3rd April 2016

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Comments Off on Ten new laws that come into force in April 2016 – and how they affect you – The Independent

Is an Absent Bannister Disrepair? – The Defective Premises Act Considered – Zenith PI Blog

Posted March 29th, 2016 in appeals, defective premises, housing, landlord & tenant, news, repairs by sally

‘The Court of Appeal have recently considered the issue of whether or not a missing bannister could amount to disrepair pursuant to section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 29th March 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Is an Absent Bannister Disrepair? – The Defective Premises Act Considered – Zenith PI Blog

High Court: commercial tenant cannot assign lease to its guarantor – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 23rd, 2016 in assignment, guarantees, insolvency, landlord & tenant, leases, news by tracey

‘Anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act prevent a tenant from assigning a lease to its guarantor, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st March 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on High Court: commercial tenant cannot assign lease to its guarantor – OUT-LAW.com

High Court: commercial tenant cannot assign lease to its guarantor – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 22nd, 2016 in landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘Anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act prevent a tenant from assigning a lease to its guarantor, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st March 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on High Court: commercial tenant cannot assign lease to its guarantor – OUT-LAW.com

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Nearly Legal

Posted March 22nd, 2016 in appeals, dogs, families, landlord & tenant, news, nuisance by sally

‘Neighbour nuisance. These are often difficult and indeed expensive cases. And always there are those affected who believe that a landlord is liable for their tenant’s nuisance (which they just aren’t, save for the extremely rare case in which the landlord has participated in or, by letting the property authorised their tenant’s nuisance – Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Ltd (No. 2) [2014] UKSC 46, [2015] AC 106,).’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Nearly Legal

Bannisters that never were – Nearly Legal

‘You wait for 4 years for another case on bannisters and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and then two come along at once…

Sternbaum v Dhesi [2016] EWCA Civ 155

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 262 (QB)

Both can be dealt with fairly quickly and together, as the courts follow the same lines. Both cases involved falls on stairs, very sadly in Dodd, a fatal fall. In each case, there was no bannister to the staircase. Both claims were on appeal from being dismissed at first instance.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Bannisters that never were – Nearly Legal

Righting wrong writs. High Court enforcement – Nearly Legal

‘This has been a bit of an epic. First, the problem of High Court Enforcement Officers using form N293A to obtain writs of possession against tenants was raised by us in November 2015, then the scale of that use became clear by January 2016, and there were updates in February. Now, the coup de grace (which, if I am entirely honest, I’ve known was coming for a while).’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 21st March 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Righting wrong writs. High Court enforcement – Nearly Legal

Cocking and another v Eacott and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, families, landlord & tenant, law reports, nuisance by sally

Cocking and another v Eacott and another [2016] EWCA Civ 140

‘The second defendant owned but did not occupy a property. She granted the first defendant, her daughter, a bare licence to live there. The second defendant paid all the bills and maintained the property and her daughter did not pay any rent. The claimant owners of the next door property complained about the excessive barking of the daughter’s dog. The claimants wrote a letter before action to which the second defendant responded that a landlord was not liable for nuisance committed by a tenant, that she was not personally involved in the alleged incidents and that she was estranged from her daughter. The claimants issued proceedings against the second defendant and her daughter for nuisance. The second defendant served a notice to quit on her daughter and obtained a possession order which she did not enforce. The second defendant did not accept the claimants’ offer of a settlement if she permanently evicted her daughter from the property. The judge held that the second defendant was liable in nuisance to the claimants even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated, concluding that liability attached once the owner knew or was deemed to know of the nuisance and had failed after a reasonable time to abate it and therefore if the owner chose to do nothing then she became liable for it with the actual creator of the nuisance.’

WLR Daily, 9th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Cocking and another v Eacott and another – WLR Daily