Comments for Nearly Legal

Comment on HB and necessaries by Chris

Chris — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:56:35 +0000

Yes I think I should thank nearly legal for Alexander-Davis. Read the e-mail on that case some 18 months before the same thing crossed my desk. Knew I’s read it off this blog and found the case.

Got the client off some damages due to it.

Comment on Sale and Rent Back: Closed down! by Ben Reeve-Lewis

Ben Reeve-Lewis — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:48:00 +0000

And not a moment too soon. Do you know what people being repossessed by their lenders are called in the SARB business? “Motivated sellers”, Eat your heart out Noam Chomsky.

Lets hope the FSA now look at the murky world of BMV investors

Comment on Proportionality, Art. 8 and Monk by NL

NL — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:17:02 +0000

Frednach

I’ve removed your suggestions about the husband’s motives, as these were speculative and are not set out in the judgment. From the judgment it appears the husband was invited to end the tenancy by the Council who told him he would otherwise be liable for rent arrears.

Comment on Proportionality, Art. 8 and Monk by frednach

frednach — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:09:51 +0000

I wholly agree with this judgement for it’s balanced and proportionate approach to ruling (I would say that wouldn’t I..) , as well as sound policy reasons. In particular, for two principal grounds:

1 [removed by NL]

2 The court found on the facts that Article 8 (right to family home) was triggered and could not be justified, nor proportionate to oust her of her family home (for which had spend a great deal of time and effort in building which) particularly where she was not at fault.

Notwithstanding, this the case merits a review by councils to consider the granting of ‘unnecessary’ tenancies where in the instant case this was specifically requested. Failure has caused considerable mess and uncertainty. Council’s need to make clear the terms of a tenancy and any changes, so both parties understand the implications and their respective rights.

More over, the issue of discretionary tenancies need to be clearly formulated with a preference or presumption of a tenancy in relation to succession rights when considering all the facts and circumstances of a particular tenant.

Comment on Eviscerated? Now also Drawn and Quartered by Sarah McLeod

Sarah McLeod — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:53:43 +0000

O the above thing came out with some random text, apologies, It as meant to read
That’s what happened to me on the 11th Jan, I wasn’t able to get my bond back even though they have had it since April 2011 and didnt deposit into a scheme until after legal proceedings began and the tenancy had ended. This means I now have to chase it up through them and I only have just received the information of the deposit. The judge did award me my court costs but nearly a year without my own money and the sad fact that had I been quicker in complaining while the tenancy was active I would have gotten more. What average thinks about their deposit until they need it back.

Comment on Eviscerated? Now also Drawn and Quartered by Sarah McLeod

Sarah McLeod — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:51:43 +0000

That’s what happened to me on the 11thactive I would have gotten more. What average thinks about their deposit until they need it back. Jan, I wasn’t able to get my bond back even though they have had it since April 2011 and didnt deposit into a scheme until after legal proceedings began and the tenancy had ended. This means I now have to chase it up through them and I only have just received the information of the deposit. The judge did award me my court costs but nearly a year without my own money and the sad fact that had I been quicker in complaining while the tenancy was the apellant has permission to amend her grounds of appeal to include an assertion that the judge was wrong to award damages under s 214(3) and (4)…. as the claimant was not a tenant when the proceedings were issued.

Comment on HMOs and Council Tax by NL

NL — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:31:34 +0000

Dave

It isn’t a good idea to have your email on public display. However, if Neil wants to email me – via the ‘about’ page – I’ll pass your email on.

Comment on HMOs and Council Tax by Dave Evennett

Dave Evennett — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:07:34 +0000

Neil
I am really interested in your situation Neil as I have come across it elsewhere. It might be useful to discuss this together. I am happy to put my email address on here if it is allowed.

Comment on HB and necessaries by dave

dave — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:26:39 +0000

I agree that the first case was wrongly decided – it took me back to my old restitution tutorials with contracts for necessities. In fairness to Judge Mark, though, I don’t think that the issues were fully and properly canvassed before him at that first hearing and the quality of submissions for EM on the second hearing were infinitely superior (not for the LA, though). The specific question about the tenancy to a minor is clearly dealt with by TLATA (in the old days, it would have been a strict settlement).

Comment on HB and necessaries by NL

NL — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:00:53 +0000

I would have thought that Alexander-Davis v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/04/an-inconvenient-problem/) would apply below 18. EM in this case was 20.

Personally – as set out in our earlier post – I think the first decision in Wychavon was simply wrong – misunderstood the difference between void and voidable – http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/10/mental-capacity-act-and-tenancy-an-open-question/