“The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim for leasehold enfranchisement by the occupiers of a mixed-use property, ruling that the property, part of which had been converted into a flat against the landlord’s wishes, was not a ‘house reasonably so called.”
OUT-LAW.com, 14th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives qualifying long leaseholders of houses the right, inter alia, to acquire the freehold. The definition of ‘house’ is quite technical, but, in essence, it turns on whether it could reasonably be called a house (even if it could reasonably be called something else). There is a quite eye-watering amount of law on this issue, most recently Day v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden v Lexgorge [2012] UKSC 41.”
NearlyLegal, 12th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“When carrying out the hypothetical valuation of a property with development potential, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Upper Tribunal ought to have decided the legal position in respect of the legal rights and liabilities arising under various leases, rather than allow for uncertainty on those legal points, insofar as leaving them undetermined, by a discount for the risk.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Hidden clauses in leasehold agreements cost unlucky leaseholders thousands, warns property lawyer Stephen Hill.”
The Guardian, 12th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“An option in an agreement which, if taken up, would lead to a tenancy was not ‘an agreement for a tenancy’ for the purposes of section 28(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Also, conditions precedent to the grant of lease were not covenants that were part of the agreement for a tenancy nor were they comprised within landlord and tenant covenants for the purposes of section 28. Therefore, in neither case did the burden of the obligation undertaken by the vendor transfer to the purchaser by virtue of the 1995 Act.”
WLR Daily, February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The LVT has no general power to award costs other than when an application is dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process or a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. In such circumstances the costs are capped at £500: para 10 of Sch 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (‘CLRA’) 2002.”
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2013
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
“For long leases, outside the provisions of s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the repairing obligation of the landlord is limited to the exact terms set out in the lease, as is the extent to which the landlord can recover the costs of repairs from the leaseholder. As anyone who has dealt with repairs on housing association shared ownership schemes where the housing association is itself a lessee of part of the building will know, this can be an utter nightmare, where the immediate landlord can seem to escape any repairing obligations whatsoever. But what if the lease terms themselves contain an apparent error?”
NearlyLegal, 9th December 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Souglides v Tweedie and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1546; [2012] WLR (D) 367
“The reference in section 9(1)(a) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 to ‘successors in title’ referred to successors in title to the lease to which the interest being conferred by the option was reversionary. Accordingly, the successor had to be a successor to the original lessee in respect of the same title, namely that lease.”
WLR Daily, 4th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A notice served under section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 had to spell out exactly what the applicants were complaining about and why they contended it was an appropriate case for the making of an acquisition order under section 29 of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 22nd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was designed to alter the balance between freeholders and their residential tenants, by giving the leaseholders the right to an extended lease or to compulsory acquisition of the freehold.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th November 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme which involved the interaction of the sub-sale and the partnership rules was effective, according to the Upper Tribunal.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1372 is important for those doing long leasehold work. I’m not entirely sure it’s right (or, perhaps a better way of putting it, I’m not sure it’s a good decision, it may be right within the statutory framework), but I’ll save that for the end. Since this is the first Right to Manage case to reach the Court of Appeal, I’ll set out some of the relevant background.”
NearlyLegal, 27th October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The appeal in Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Bentley Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC) highlights three issues for landlords: compliance with s47 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, remedying non-compliance, and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal’s procedure and jurisdiction.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A property built as, and which retained the appearance of, a house but which was being used solely for commercial purposes was not a ‘house … reasonably so called’ for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 so as to give the lessees the right to acquire the freehold compulsorily.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Supreme Court has ended years of legal uncertainty by ruling on what constitutes a house in the contest of leasehold enfranchisement.”
The Lawyer, 11th October 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“There is, it is fair to say, a degree of inconsistency in the approach and practice of LVTs up and down the country. In particular, some LVT members seem to see it as part of their role to act as quasi-audit bodies, looking into all aspects of the landlord’s practice and procedure to see if they can uncover any wrongdoing. It’s very frustrating, both for landlords and tenants and is one of the reasons for the increasingly ‘lawyerly’ approach of landlords (e.g. instructing solicitors and counsel).”
NearlyLegal, 6th October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Restrictive covenants are, in broad terms, contractual restrictions imposed on the current user/owner of land, often imposed by a former owner of the same land (e.g. Mr A sells a field to Mr B, but includes a covenant preventing Mr B from building flats on it). These covenants can, clearly, become onerous or otherwise unnecessary with the passage of time. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has a discretionary power (s.84, Law of Property Act 1925) to modify or discharge these covenants in certain circumstances. The most common ground is s.84(1)(aa), which applies if the removal of the covenant would support a reasonable use of the land and any inconvenience can be met by a payment of money.”
NearlyLegal, 17th July 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Owner occupiers unable to afford their mortgages have sometimes entered into sale and rent back arrangements (‘SRBs’). Under a SRB, the house is sold, often at a discount, but the vendor remains in occupation under a lease granted by the purchaser. According to a 2008 OFT study, even though SRBs were a relatively new phenomenon there had been about 50,000 of them. At that time the SRB market was unregulated. The FSA began to regulate it in 2009. According to a recent FSA press release, ‘the entire SRB market is temporarily shut’. Nevertheless, it is apparent that many tens of thousands of SRBs must have taken place by now.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 666; [2012] WLR (D) 151
“Since the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gave a tenant of a flat the right to acquire the freehold of his premises following service on the landlord of a notice of claim under section 13, and the tenant also had the statutory right to serve a second notice of claim at any time after a year had expired following the withdrawal of the first notice of claim, the general provision in CPR r 38.7, requiring the permission of the court to bring a second claim, did not apply to a second claim based on such a second notice.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Arrears of rent due during the provisional liquidation period were to be treated as an expense of the liquidation and payable in priority to most other liquidation expenses.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024