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
Thompson v Hurst  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.
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
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
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
Francis v LB Southwark  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
Fineland Investments Ltd v Janice Vivien Pritchard  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
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  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