There was a short (and not particularly well-informed) debate in Westminster Hall yesterday about leasehold property management. Quite amusingly, Nick Boles MP (Under-Secretary of State at CLG) had this to say about the Right to Manage:
Nick Boles:… I want briefly to address the right-to-manage legislation. I must admit that this is the first time I have ever heard about it, so I may not make as much sense as hon. Members deserve. The leasehold right-to-manage legislation is designed to be available to as many private sector leaseholders living in blocks of flats as possible. The right was designed for use on a block-by-block basis. Applying the legislation to
… Read the full post
I see that the Master of the Rolls has just issued a practice direction in respect of (what appears to be) many tens (if not hundreds?) of negligence claims arising out of RTB sales (see here).
Reading between the lines, a firm called Tandem Law (see here) appear to have brought lots of claims for negligence against solicitors who acted in RTB claims. It looks like there is said to be something dodgy about how mortgages were arranged. Now the cases are all being pulled together for Sales J to try and deal with.
Does anyone know anything more about this? It sounds like quite a big deal…… Read the full post
I’ve posted before about the vexed issue of s.81, Housing Act 1996 and default judgments (see here for the most recent county court case; note also the comments to that post which explain that Woodfall has changed its mind). Well, we now have another (minor) comment on the issue from Lord Justice Kitchin in Faizi v Greenside Properties Ltd  EWCA Civ 1382 (only on Case Track from what I can see).
Mr & Mrs Farzi appear to have been the leasehold owners of a flat in a building owned by Greenside. In April 2009, Greenside issued proceedings in the court court for service charge arrears and interest, totaling just … Read the full post
I’ve just been reading Ahmed and others v Mahmood and others  EWHC 3176 (QB) (Lawtel only I think) and I’m totally confused. If anyone who was in the case can help, I’d be very grateful.
The defendants lived in a property owned by the claimants. The claimants issued a claim for possession. The defendants unsuccessfully applied to adjourn the trial. The claimants then obtained a possession order. There were outstanding appeals against both the refusal of the adjournment and the possession order.
Notwithstanding those appeals, the case was transferred to the High Court for enforcement. The claimants then filled in the form asking for a High Court Enforcement Officer … Read the full post
Readers might be interested to know that the ECHR has held that the complaint by Mr Pinnock (of Manchester CC v Pinnock fame) is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under art.35 (see here). You’ll recall that the Supreme Court decided the issue of proportionality for itself and made a possession order against Mr Pinnock.
Mr Pinnock complained to the ECHR about the making of that possession order. In particular, he alleged that:
… the Supreme Court had failed to apply the established principle of proportionality… the principles actually applied were impossible to ascertain from its judgment.. the court had failed to apply the principle that there must be a rational
… Read the full post
I want to put this post in context:
(a) I write this post for myself and do not necessarily speak on behalf of the other NL writers.
(b) I have enormous respect for Shelter. I have friends who work there. I make regular donations to Shelter. We have lots of Shelter readers who we love and respect. The world is a better place because of Shelter.
(c) I also despair of the ability of “progressives” or the “left” to degenerate into in-fighting over who can be the most ideologically pure (witness the recent nonsense criticism of Jack Monroe and whether she represents the “right sort” of poverty) and sincerely hope … Read the full post
Santander (UK) Plc v McAtamney and other cases  NIMaster 15 is, as the neutral citation should reveal, a case from Northern Ireland, decided by a Chancery Master. It is not, therefore, a binding authority on the law of England and Wales. Nevertheless, it is very interesting and, as we’ll see, highly persuasive.
The claimant mortgage companies had previously obtained suspended possession orders and were applying for leave to enforce the same. Now, I interpose here to explain that in NI, as in England and Wales, the Administration of Justice Acts 1970 and 1973 (s.36 and s.8, respectively) operate, so as to permit the court to suspend (or further suspend) … Read the full post