This will be a busy few weeks for me on the Homes(Fitness for Human Habitation) Act. On the off chance that anyone wants to hear and question me and others on the Act, here are some dates and details:
15 May 2019 – HLPA meeting, with Steve Lawrence of the Health and Housing Group. 6.30 pm. HLPA members only, Waterloo, London. Details here.
16 May 20189. National HMO Network Conference. From 9.30 am. City of London. Part of a full day conference. Details here.
23 May 2019 – SHLA event, with Karen Buck MP, Michelle Glazebrook and Andrew Dymond. 6.30 pm. City of London (and video links to Birmingham, Manchester and Exeter(!)). Details here.
13 June 2019 – LAG Housing Law Conference, with Karen Buck MP and Catherine O’Donnell (and much more and many others). From 9 am. University College London. Details here.
Because the people at LAG are lovely, they have arranged for a discount for NL readers of 10% off print, ebook or bundle (print and ebook) from Monday 13 May until Friday 24 May
The code for the discount is LANEARLY10
And yes, I am promoting things. I’ll live with it. I’m not making any more money from these things, unless the book wholly unexpectedly hits the best seller lists…
Meanwhile, and importantly, The Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 introduce a new Form 6A, which is the prescribed form of section 21 notice. This takes effect from 1 June 2019 and incorporates some changes for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. This must be used for all section 21 notices from 1 June 2019 (or at least for all tenancies and renewal tenancies that post-date 1 October 2015 – there is debate on those pre dating 1 Oct 2015, but my view is it applies).
It is strongly arguable that using the previous form 6A after 31 May 2019 would result in the s.21 notice being invalid, because the information about the Tenant Fees Act is relevant information.
Lastly, via the Daily Mail (I’m sorry) comes a tale of a dispute between a leaseholder and a residents management company (RMC) that highlights just how silly things can get in the leasehold world.
The leaseholder, who had a ground floor flat with patio area, was renovating the patio, with new paving slabs. The RMC apparently objected, demanding via solicitors that works stop pending consent, that there be an inspection of the replacement paving slabs, which were wrongly suspected of being too thin, that hanging baskets be removed as constituting a fire hazard, and that the gate to the patio be repainted. This was all alleged to be in breach of lease.
For weeks I could not sleep as I fought to save my patio.
The leaseholder is a barrister and Deputy District Judge. And was Not Impressed. Somehow, the saga encompassed the RMC complaining to the Bar Standards Board that it was being harassed by the leaseholder (which went to a hearing at which the RMC was unsuccessful), and the matter being listed for a 5 day trial at Central London County Court. The trial only lasted two days. The leaseholder won, but was only awarded half her costs. The hanging baskets were not a fire risk and consent had been received for the work beforehand, even though the RMC denied this.
One of the RMC directors is quoted as saying
‘We still don’t understand why we were ordered to pay half her legal costs. It’s all a dreadful waste of money’.
Well, yes, but the RMC brought the claim and lost. So…
The thing is – and this is where it gets sillier – because the RMC has no funds of its own, all the leaseholders in the development are having to stump up £2000 to cover the RMC’s and half the leaseholder’s costs, as a management cost under the service charge. That includes the leaseholder, who apparently didn’t obtain a section 20C order.
Is that the end of it? Sadly no. The leaseholder has apparently
issued fresh proceedings and is demanding around £500,000 in damages from the directors of the management company, claiming that the patio dispute caused her to suffer from depression, for which she received medication and counselling, led to a loss of income and also damaged her professional reputation.
It also includes some £100,000 of costs for fighting the BSB complaint.
Now, I’m not going to comment on live proceedings, or the merits of such a claim, but going against the directors of a company in person, rather than the company, is a steeply uphill battle in the best of circumstances.
But sometimes leasehold disputes take on the same character as neighbour disputes (indeed, they are a form of neighbour dispute) – and as every lawyer in the field knows, the first rule of neighbour disputes is ‘don’t go there. Insisting on principle will be very, very expensive for all concerned’.