More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

Ground Rent notification

By J
17/05/2011

I’ve just noticed that the Government amended the wording for Ground Rent demands (s.166, 2002 Act) on April 26, 2011 (see here: http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/1905195). The change is in para. 3 of the Notes for Leaseholders.

It used to read:

“Section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and regulations made under it prevent your landlord from forfeiting your lease for non-payment of rent, service charges or administration charges (or a combination of them) if the amount owed is £350 or less, or none of the unpaid amount has been outstanding for more than three years.”

 

It has been changed to read:

“Section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform and regulations made under it prevent your landlord from forfeiting your lease for non-payment of rent, service charges or administration charges (or a combination of them) unless the unpaid amount is more than £350 or consists of, or includes an amount that has been outstanding for more than three years.” (my underlining).

This is only in England, there doesn’t seem to have been a change in Wales.

J is a barrister. He considers housing law to be the single greatest kind of law known to humankind and finds it very odd that so few people share this view.

4 Comments

  1. David Dredge

    So if the wording on a demand is not correct (ie as the new one) can a lessee not pay?

    Reply
  2. J

    Well, it’s more that, by s.166, 2002 Act, the tenant “is not liable to make a payment of rent” until the correct information is provided. He could, I suppose, always chose to make a payment anyway

    Reply
  3. David Dredge

    What I meant was this could be another reason NOT to pay (or at least put things off a few weeks)

    Reply
  4. J

    Yes – the tenant “is not liable to pay” until the information is provided, so it seems to me that he’s entitled to require the info to be served before he pays.

    Reply

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.