Comments on: Pour encourager les autres

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:28:17 +0000

Yes, so maybe spread as wide as Haringey, Waltham Forest & Lambeth.

Might be a push to claim that the Saint in St.Ockwell committed the indictable offence “in the locality of the dwelling house”, but the others are worth a stab. Or shanking, to use the modern vernacular.

By: NL

NL — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:20:45 +0000

One was from Walthamstow, one from Tottenham and one living in Stockwell. Hm. Stockwell. Any news there?

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:55:43 +0000

More high jinks in the concrete jungle:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/20/gang-rape-caustic-soda-london

Ground 2 news from anyone in Haringey?

By: J

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:20:15 +0000

Noted in the Times law reports today

By: Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:20:42 +0000

An action could only be brought by the freeholder/superior lessee

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:31:37 +0000

And forfeiture could result, I presume.

But only if an action is brought.

If any scouse solicitors are reading this because they’re short of work… go solicit (we won’t tell).

By: NL

NL — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:23:37 +0000

Michael. Not a poser at all – it depends on the lease. There is often a ‘don’t cause nuisance to other lessees’ clause.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:24:28 +0000

Or this lovely lot?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/17/rhys-jones-killer-gang-culture

Never been to Liverpool (sorry) but Croxteth looks like it might have the odd RSL tenancy in it – or are these all the off-spring of freeholders?

That’s a point, would there be anything in a leasehold covenant commensurate with the indictable offence ground?

That’s housing law poser worth investigation, no?

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:41:12 +0000

Are there no readers from the London Borough of Hang-em-high on here? No Hackney Five-0 cops with the inside gen?

Or is the silence saying that no possession proceedings are being taken?

That would mean that about 2 years from now the Magnificent Seven will be back on their manor swapping war stories, blaming everyone else, and stalking disrespectful pre-teens?

Maybe landlords are of the mind that the “may order possession” in Ground 2 equally means “may not”, but that’s not a good enough reason not to give it a go.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:51:11 +0000

Calling All Housing Law Sleuths

Didn’t quite know where to slot this in so entered “anti social” in the search and went for the first one that came up.

Does anyone know the fate of the named tenants (I’m presuming they are tenants – what a snob! I’m presuming they’re the boys’ mothers (and not fathers) what a double-snob!) who housed these perps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/09/crime-hackney-rape-gang

There was a short discussion a few months ago on here that seemed to imply that landlords could invoke Ground 2 (of some or other act) to evict on the basis that an indictable offence has taken place in or near the dwelling.

Does anyone know if the landlords took such an action?

Did it succeed? (or were the loving, nurturing parents saved by a HLPA Superhero?)

Very interested to know.