Monthly Archive for August, 2008

Page 2 of 3

Nearly Legal 2.0

By NL on 09/08/2008. 4 Comments

Having posed some questions about this blog’s future a couple of weeks ago, I am delighted to be able to announce the next stage for Nearly Legal.

First and most importantly, you will notice case notes, news and opinion pieces by other people appearing from here on – although we’ll be starting slowly during the dog days of August.

Nearly Legal has now become a blog with a group of contributors. And I’m proud to say that the standard of contributors is very high, as the group consists of solicitors and barristers practising in housing and landlord/tenant law. I will continue posting and will be taking on the role of … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Various (non-housing). Tags: .

ASB corner

By NL on 09/08/2008. 1 Comment

The August 2008 Legal Action contains a couple of cases concerning anti-social behaviour possession claims that weren’t recorded elsewhere.

Ealing LBC v Jama B5/08/0104 was a Court of Appeal matter. Mrs Jama was Ealing’s secure tenant of a two bed property. The household included her husband and six children. Ealing sought possession on allegations of ASB including noise nuisance, ten instances of flooding into the flat below, problems with rubbish disposal and urination in the lift. At the County Court, the judge accepted Mrs Jama had faced some harassment, but did not accept her evidence on the flooding. The judge accepted the evidence of a plumber that the flooding was … Read the full post

Posted in ASB, FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , .

Amour fou

By NL on 08/08/2008. 2 Comments

Unsurprisingly, the papers and blawgers have been all over the story of Kylie McGrath, detained under the Mental Health Act after breaking into the home of solicitor Emma Eardley, whom McGrath had been stalking for over two years. McGrath began as Eardley’s client, but began a sustained campaign of stalking and harrassment apparently after Eardley turned down her ‘request for a relationship’, or as the Telegraph would have it, setting the tone for its article, her ‘romantic overtures.’

I must confess that this initially struck me as material for a ‘naughty step’ post, but after a very few moments reflection, I decided against it. The reasons why will become … Read the full post

Posted in Various (non-housing). Tags: , , , .

It's oh so quiet…

By NL on 06/08/2008. 8 Comments

Or at least after last week’s tsunami of housing cases, it is quiet. This is good because I am a) perversely very busy, what with everyone else being on holiday, and b) behind the serene exterior of the blog, there is intense plotting and organising going on, of which much more in a few weeks days.

However my eye was caught by a news story. It appears that the great housing crash of ’08 might have yet another unexpected benefit, as buried towards the bottom of a Guardian story on stamp duty holidays was this little nugget about our own dear housing minister:

The housing minister, Caroline Flint, has also

… Read the full post

Posted in Various (non-housing). Tags: , , .

Retrospective CFAs

By NL on 04/08/2008. 0 Comments

Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs)

In brief, where a firm had asked a client to sign a second CFA for a disrepair claim, at a time when it appeared that the first CFA might be found unenforceable, and the second CFA provided for a success fee where the first one didn’t:

a) was the second CFA unenforceable because it concerns matters contained in the first CFA?

b) was the second CFA unenforceable because it is retrospective?

c) what period is covered by the second CFA?

d) is the success fee retrospective?

e) when a second CFA is signed at a time when a firm offer is … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .

Estoppel – needs something to estop

By NL on 04/08/2008. 2 Comments

I’m not going to do a report on this one as it is a) epic, b) unprecis-able and thankfully c) pretty much off topic for housing law. But anyone who, like me, is a bit of an equity hobbyist on the side, the House of Lords judgment in Yeoman’s Row Management Limited (Appellants) and another v Cobbe (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 55 is a must read on proprietary estoppel and constructive trust.

The upshot is that

Proprietary estoppel requires, in my opinion, clarity as to what it is that the object of the estoppel is to be estopped from denying, or asserting, and clarity as to the interest in the property in question that

… Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , .

What is a locality?

By NL on 03/08/2008. 1 Comment

R (on the application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v The Rent Service) (Respondents) [2008] UK 58 concerns the meaning of locality in para 4(6) of Part 1 Schedule 1 Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997.

Locality serves to define the area by reference to which the Local Reference Rent was established and hence the level of Housing Benefit. As the definition of locality is effectively the same for the new system of Local Housing Allowances, the issue is still of importance.

The appeal was from a Court of Appeal judgment upholding a rent officers determination that a locality could be the whole of Sheffield, with outlying rural areas.

Para 4(6) … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .
row of sheds footer image
3 pages