- Adverse possession(16)
- Community care(62)
- Housing law – All(1299)
- Mortgage possession(62)
- Tolerated trespasser(49)
- Trusts and Estoppel(42)
- Various (non-housing)(439)
- Get the Affordable L on When is an insurance premium reasonably incurred?
- Trouble out west – NearlyLegal | Current Awareness on Trouble out west
- Giles Peaker on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- William Noad on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- DavBag on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Bill Heywood on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- CJ on Trouble out west
- Giles Peaker on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Joy Boyd on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Debbie on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
Visits in 2014278213
Author Archives: David Smith
The Upper Tribunal has again found itself considering the issue of Rent Repayment Orders and has provided some further enlightenment on its position after the case of Parker v Waller (which we wrote about here).
Mr Fallon had been convicted of operating a property without an HMO licence and fined a, very modest, £585 with assorted costs and a contribution to the victims fund. Three of his five occupiers then made separate applications to the FTT(PC) (or “futpuc” if you prefer NL’s pronunciation) for RROs and the FTT then made an award to each applicant for 100% of the … Read the full post
This is a slightly surprising case involving a judicial review of refusal of permission to appeal.
T was an Assured Shorthold Tenant of a property. His tenancy began on 18 December 2012 and was for 6 months. He paid a deposit as is common. The deposit protection certificate stated that the tenancy began on 20 December and that the deposit was paid on 22 December. The report does not comment on this inconsistency so we can only assume the court considered the date discrepancies to be irrelevant. The deposit was actually protected on … Read the full post
The answer appears to be when it is only for access!
We first reported on this case briefly as a decision of the Bristol Magistrates Court. It has now been appealed by way of case stated and so the High Court has produced a definitive view.
The facts, briefly, were that Digs owns a series of properties in Bristol which are predominantly let to students. This property is a five storey property which is divided into two two storey maisonettes. The fifth storey is the basement which is not used and forms now part of this case. The case … Read the full post
Spencer v Taylor  EWCA Civ 1600
This case was flagged recently on the Arden Chambers eflash service. This flash gave some bare bones details and led to much debate on the internal NL email discussion list. However, we now have the vital transcript and so we can give a proper report.
[Update 11/12/13 - Judgment now on Bailii ]
[Update 1/3/13 - There is a mistake in the transcript as regards the day of the notice. This post has been corrected.]
S granted an Assured Shorthold Tenancy under the terms of the Housing Act 1988 to T on 6 February 2006, a Monday. It was for a fixed … Read the full post
We have previously commented (fairly negatively!) on the plans to introduce compulsory membership of redress schemes for lettings and property management agency work which appeared at the last minute in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
Slightly surprisingly (actually it isn’t, that was a rhetorical device) the government has, instead of producing the consultation that was promised on this issue, produced a draft Statutory Instrument which sets out the requirements for any organisation that is seeking approval as a redress scheme provider.
There is not a huge amount of useful information in the draft SI, unless you are considering applying to be a redress scheme of course! There … Read the full post
News has reached us from RH Environmental of a case in Bristol Magistrates on HMO licensing and the counting of storeys. Unfortunately it is not binding but it is nonetheless interesting.
The case involves the licensing status of a two storey maisonette on the first and second floor of a property. There was accordingly (as tenants don’t fly) a separate private entrance and staircase leading from ground to first floor. Both sides agreed it was an HMO. The dispute was over whether it was a two or three storey HMO, three storey HMOs being subject to mandatory licensing. The report is limited but I am guessing the issue was actually … Read the full post