Wrong to RTB

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

A Less Beneficial Interest

Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752

This is a rather fact specific case which shows application of the principles of Stack v Dowden and Kernott v Jones. Our report on Kernott which covers the whole debate is here.

Background

H was the tenant of a local authority and had been since 1983. In 1985 T moved in with her. They did not marry but lived as a couple in the property. However, H remained the sole tenant of the property. In 2001 they bought the property under the right to buy scheme at a discount. The mortgage was in the name of H and she contributed the … Read the full post

Glad To See Y’Back Again?

Gladysheva v Russia (App. No. 7097/10)

Courtesy of the always excellent ECHR blog, comes an interesting Strasbourg decision, particularly in relation to the question of just satisfaction. It has, regrettably, taken me ages to write this up. Any students who have had to write essays about it in the meantime clearly have sadistic tutors.

The facts of the case bear some similarity with Tuleshov v Russia, but there are a few differences and what is quite interesting about this case is what the ECtHR does about just satisfaction.

The basic facts are that Ms Gladysheva was a bona fide purchaser of a flat in Moscow. The previous owner … Read the full post

Laying the foundations (2): RTB

Push the bad news out just before Christmas seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb.  Our previous post on the housing strategy, Laying the Foundations, led to a number of comments about the right to buy proposals in that document, which were all pretty vague.  Today, DCLG has published Reinvigorating the Right to Buy and One for One Replacement, which provides some further flesh on the bones, although they are no further forward in working out how best to distribute the funds which are assumed to increase.  They are assumed to increase because the government intends to increase the cap on the discount to £50,000.  The … Read the full post

You’re ‘avin’ a giraffe

Francis v LB Southwark [2011] EWCA Civ 1418

This was a brave attempt to try and get something out a local authority’s mistaken denial of a right to buy application, but it was not one which the Court of Appeal had any truck with.

Mr Francis was a tenant of the London Borough of Southwark. It seems that the course of his tenancy had not been a smooth one. Rent arrears would accrue, but eviction would be staved off. In March 2003 Mr F submitted a right to buy application in respect his flat on the Acorn Estate.

Southwark responded in September 2003, with a Housing Act 1985, s.124 notice … Read the full post

Not quite a right to buy

Fineland Investments Ltd v Janice Vivien Pritchard [2011] EWHC 113 (Ch)

From Lawtel. Not on BAILII yet.

This is a slightly sad tale involving the exercise of right to buy by a council tenant.

Ms Pritchard had entered into an agreement with Fineland whereby she would buy her council house at a discount using money provided by F and then sell it on to them. However, they were both seeking to avoid the effects of s155 Housing Act 1985 which would have required her to pay the discount back to the Council.

To do this an arrangement was made whereby P signed an undated transfer of land which they would … Read the full post

“Could have gone better” corner

Just a brief note on a couple of tangentially housing-related cases, both of which serve as illustrations of how not to go about things as claimants and in one case, as a defendant as well. A little cruel, perhaps, as to be human is to err, but the oops factor is irresistible.

London Borough of Haringey v Hines [2010] EWCA Civ 1111

Ms Hines had purchased a property under the right to buy from Haringey in 2002. In 2008, Haringey brought a claim for rescission of the lease, alternatively a declaration that it was void, damages for a fraudulent misrepresentation said to have been made by Ms Hines on 16 … Read the full post

Con-Dem housing reform plans

Cameron and Shapps have trailed a consultation paper to be published as early as tomorrow with a “plan to end lifetime council tenancies” (Inside Housing and The Guardian) and a “home swap scheme to help tenants move” (Today Programme and Inside Housing) (hat-tip to Katie Brown (HLPA junior group), J, and Francis Davey – e-mail’s been buzzing this morning – as well as he who cannot be named who tipped me off about this announcement a week or so ago).  The idea behind both schemes is to facilitate labour mobility, which rather goes to the “end of housing policy” debate that did the rounds at the … Read the full post