Comments on: Shared Ownership – Midland Heart with benefit of transcript

By: NL

NL — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:26:22 +0000

Keen though Dom’s legal insights surely are, you could try contacting us rather than asking people to contact you (twice, I’ve deleted the other one).

By: Don't Get Done, Get Dom

Don't Get Done, Get Dom — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:09:22 +0000

Hi Everyone,

I’m working for the BBC1 program Don’t Get Done Get Dom, and trying to find new cases for our sixth series.

We would like to do a programme about Shared Ownership and pitfalls related to it, as in the case of Ms Richardson. If anyone has any case studies or points they would like to share with us, then please get in contact with us at:
dom@flametv.co.uk

Best wishes,
Dom Team

By: landlord's boy

landlord's boy — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:23:12 +0000

without wanting to put words into `chief’s’ mouth, it may be due to the rarity of cases where the `tenant’ has paid for their 50% share outright, rather than borrowing the monies. i was at a conference recently and put a question on the case to jan luba qc – his answer was precisely that there were only a tiny handful of similar cases (re outright purchase of the 50%) as set against numerous `mortgaged’ examples. but as we know, the mortgaged examples tend to get sorted out by the mortgagee paying off the arrears and then staircasing out. although i’ve recently had a case in which the mortgagee did/said nothing for months and the RSL i act for was on the brink of issuing after having `threatened’ the mortgagee with `midland heart’ repeatedly…

as we know with `weaver’ the CA and the SC are not mad fans of academic/paper appeals on interesting points to them and i’d be surprised if there are many `midland heart’ types outcomes that are appealable, but maybe so?

By: chief

chief — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:13:36 +0000

@Dave – now you’re just baiting me ;-)
Anyway, it was really just idle speculation on my part.

By: Cait

Cait — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:21:10 +0000

I understood that they hadnt actually *paid* the ex gratia payment though?

and yay on the bated thing :)

Cait

By: dave

dave — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:50:12 +0000

Chief: Just out of interest, why do you say that it may not have been the best case on its facts? It seemed a very good one to me, illustrating the manifest absurdity of these types of relationships. The only reason why it may not have been was because Midland Heart – out of the goodness of their, well, heart – apparently made an “ex gratia” payment of the amount Ms R had put into the property in the first place, but even then it seems to me to be a perfect case. I shall abate your response.

By: chief

chief — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:02:43 +0000

@Cait - it is just a rumour, so I'm open (hoping even) to correction. It may be that on its facts it was not the best case to deal with the ramifications. On your previous question about bated/baited, old Shylock has the answer - (bated) - although if you're going to wait for the Court of Appeal to sort this out you'll probably end up pretty blue in the face and thus baited might be better. Now be honest, you didn't expect a housing law blog to be doing that today, did you?

By: Cait

Cait — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:09:50 +0000

:O
Public funding was pulled?
That’s scandalous as it has significant ramifications.

Im obviously too naive but phoooieee if that’s the case.

Still waiting with the whole baited breath thing.

Cait

By: chief

chief — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:02:21 +0000

The rumour is that this has been shelved, due to the appellant’s public funding being pulled. Does anyone know for definite? Although it’s still in the case tracker it hasn’t appeared on the cause list for either today or tomorrow.

By: NL

NL — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:47:39 +0000

We’ll see…