Rent increases and rent lawfully due – Nearly Legal

Posted June 23rd, 2016 in landlord & tenant, news, rent by sally

‘A few years ago now, I was instructed by Luton Law Centre in a series of possession cases brought by BPHA (a housing association) in Luton and Bedford County Courts. The claims were all for rent arrears, brought variously on Housing Act (HA) 1988 Sch 2 Grounds 8, 10 and 11. Their common feature was that, in all of them, BPHA had (apparently unwittingly) been raising the rent in breach of the terms.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 22nd June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Yes but No – Article 8 and the private sector – Nearly Legal

‘The Supreme Court has finally decided on the issue that has been hanging over private sector possession claims since Pinnock and Powell – whether article 8 proportionality of eviction defence might also apply to the private sector as well as to public body landlords. The Court of Appeal decision (our note here) was frankly unsatisfactory, so finality from the Supreme Court was desirable.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 19th June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Landlord sentenced after admitting conspiring to defraud council – Local Government Lawyer

‘A landlord has been sentenced to 17 months in prison suspended for 12 months after she admitted conspiring to defraud a district council.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 17th June 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

From the County Courts – deposits, evictions and introductory tenancies – Nearly Legal

‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in covenants, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases by sally

Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch)

‘The tenant occupied the ground and basement floors of a building from which it operated a gallery. The lease contained terms reserving the landlord’s right to build and a covenant for quiet enjoyment. In order to carry out works on the adjoining upper floors of the building, the landlord erected scaffolding, which enveloped the building, restricting access to the tenant’s gallery and giving the impression that it was closed. The works also caused substantial noise in the tenant’s premises. No financial compensation was offered by the landlord to the tenant for the works undertaken.’

WLR Daily, 10th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Beware of residential rights – Tanfield Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2016 in housing, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘With the constant cry for more housing, commercial developers are increasingly including residential flats in their plans. Whether they are converting offices into homes or building new mixed-use schemes, developers must be aware of the raft of rights that residential tenants enjoy which are not available to commercial tenants. With some careful planning, some of these rights can be avoided.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 31st May 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

And the first shall be last – Nearly Legal

Posted May 31st, 2016 in amendments, housing, landlord & tenant, local government, news by tracey

‘An accidental chain of tenancies, in which only the very first was left standing. London Borough of Haringey v 1) Hansa Ahmed & 2) Shaheeda Ahmed [2016] EWHC 1257 (Ch). Three tenancy agreements for the same property, apparently at least partly at the same time, and possession proceedings against someone who was not a tenant under either agreement. Just how was this going to work out.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 30th May 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Tis aw a muddle – costs edition – Nearly Legal

Posted May 6th, 2016 in agency, costs, injunctions, joinder, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by tracey

‘Morales v Enver (2016) QBD (Irwin J) 28/04/2016. Mr M had brought injunction for re-entry proceedings against a landlord and agents.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 4th May 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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