‘This was a judicial review of LB Enfield’s plans for borough wide additional HMO licensing and selective licensing of all PRS properties. It did not go well for Enfield, who appear to have not quite grasped the consultation requirements.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Ng and another v Charalambous and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1604; [2014] WLR (D) 540
‘Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended, which provided that any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy in existence on 6 April 2012 had to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme, was concerned not with the date at which the deposit was received but with the date on which the tenancy was in effect. Where such a deposit was not held in an authorised scheme, having been received before the relevant date, the sanctions for non-compliance in section 215(1) nevertheless applied so as to preclude the landlord from serving on the tenant a valid notice stating that possession was required under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.’
WLR Daily, 16th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘We have dealt with the basic facts in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2014] UKSC 52 when considering its previous incarnations (Cooke v Mortgage Business [2012] EWCA Civ 17 and Re North East Property Buyers Ltd [2010] EWHC 2991 (Ch)). In summary, the basic question for the Supreme Court was this: where a seller has agreed, prior to the contract of sale, that the buyer will grant the seller a tenancy after the sale, does the seller have that right so as not only to bind the buyer but also the buyer’s lender? I think, when framed as a question like that, the answer seems obvious. Call me a weak-kneed liberal, but all the equity (colloquially speaking) is in favour of the seller. They have entered in to the transaction on that basis and would not have entered in to the transaction otherwise. We all make bad deals which the law doesn’t get us out of, but the equity isn’t really in our favour: why should the law get us out of a bad deal?’
Nearly Legal, 14th December 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In R (Turley) v LB Wandsworth , the Claimant was the partner of the late Mr Doyle, who was the secure tenant of a property at Battersea Park Rd, London, SW8 from 1995 until his death on 17/3/2012. Mr D and Ms T had 4 children together and they lived at the property throughout, apart from a critically important period of separation between December 2010 and January 2012.
Ms T applied to succeed to the secure tenancy but the council decided that because she had not resided at the property for the 12 months immediately preceding Mr D’s death, she did not qualify to succeed. Ms T brought judicial review proceedings against that decision.’
Nearly Legal, 14th December 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘The High Court has quashed a selective licensing scheme that Enfield Council was seeking to apply to the entire borough.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th December 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A secure tenant who was unlawfully evicted from his accommodation has won his Supreme Court battle with a London council over the level of damages payable.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd December 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has confirmed the risks of sale and rent back arrangements in Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd v Scott [2014] UKSC 52. Mrs Scott was the vendor in a sale and rent back. Against her knowledge the purchaser had obtained a mortgage to fund the purchase of her home and defaulted, causing it to be repossessed. She was unsuccessful in arguing that her lease took priority to the mortgage.’
New Square Chambers, 28th November 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Supreme Court, 3rd December 2014
Osman and another v Natt and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1520; [2014] WLR (D) 505
‘On its proper interpretation the statutory scheme of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 required the court to hold that a purported notice under section 13 claiming the right to collective enfranchisement was invalid by virtue of the non-compliance with section 13(3)(e) in failing to identify all the qualifying tenants and to state their addresses in the property. The intention of the legislature as to the consequences of non-compliance with the statutory procedure had to be ascertained in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole.’
WLR Daily, 26th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Landlords in the West Midlands who fail to check whether prospective tenants are in the country legally will face a £3,000 fine, under a new rule expected to be rolled out across the UK.’
BBC News, 1st December 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Tenancies Reform Bill has now been formally published following its second reading. The Bill has changed substantially from the original version that was put forward by Sarah Teather MP and drafted by Shelter. We commented on the Bill before as we had seen the version produced at first reading. The Bill has now benefitted from the gentle caress of the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office so it looks entirely different.’
NearlyLegal, 27th November 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is not unknown for losing parties in a case to not be happy, indeed very upset. There are two basic options. To shut up and put up with it, or appeal. Rather unusually, faced with one of the most coruscating High Court judgments I can recall, in AA V LB Southwark [our report here], the senior officers of Southwark Council have chosen to do neither. Instead, Southwark’s Housing and Communities Strategic Director has chosen to publicly announce that the judgment was ‘unjust’ and ‘clearly wrong’, but that Southwark aren’t going to appeal it.’
NearlyLegal, 25th November 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A new law is supposed to protect tenants from rogue letting agents – yet only one London authority appears to be implementing the new ruling.’
The Independent, 24th November 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Sims (Appellant) v Dacorum Borough Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 63 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
‘Something that can take some housing practitioners by surprise is a Notice to Quit served, not by a landlord on a tenant, but by a tenant on a landlord (sometimes referred to by housing officers as a “notice to terminate”).’
Zenith Chambers, 13th November 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The North East Property Buyers litigation test cases finally reached the Supreme Court and judgment was handed down on 22nd October 2014. Any practitioner in property and housing litigation in the North East, and indeed further afield, will have had some knowledge of, or dealings with, schemes such as were in these cases examined. They concerned sale and lease back agreements, a simple enough notion, involving the purchase of a vendor’s home by a nominee, often at an undervalue, in return granting the vendor a lease of the property, thereby releasing equity to the vendor and allowing them to remain in the property at a reduced rent.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 24th October 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) have provided a wide range of case law since they came into force. Decisions have often been focused on issues such as what constitutes a relevant transfer or the effect ofinsolvency on a transfer. However, there has been surprisingly little case law which deals with the Regulation 13 TUPE duty to inform and consult and the Regulation 15 TUPE claim to a tribunal for a failure to inform and consult.’
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 16th October 2014
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A landlord who built an outbuilding and converted it into six small flats without planning permission has been ordered to pay more than £280,000.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th November 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
This is a post about the consultation provisions in ss.20, 20ZA, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, applicable in respect of service chargeable costs. If you’re not interested in long leasehold law (which, looking at the site stats for most popular pages, is most of you), then look away now.
NearlyLegal, 5th November 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Shelter, the housing charity, is calling for a ban on “revenge evictions”, which it says are being carried out by bad landlords on tenants who dare to complain about inadequate conditions or ask for repairs to be made.’
Full story
The Guardian, 25th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024