Foxtons to Appeal in OFT case

Well, as we suggested might happen here, Foxtons is going to appeal the decision of the High Court in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in the Bank Charges case. The Times has reported this (slightly badly) here.

However, it is questionable whether the implications are as important for other agents as the Times suggests given that the Foxtons decision arguably had little impact on agents whose clauses were drafted in plain and intelligible language.

Filed under: Uncategorized , OFT, Unfair Terms

Building Regulation Consultation

The Department of Communities and Local Government has today (just in time for Christmas!) published a new consultation regarding the authorisation of self-certification schemes under the Building Regulations. Essentially as the Regulations have become more complex they have become difficult to police effectively. This was recognised back in 2002 and was dealt with by licensing certain organisations (such as CORGI, FENSA and OFTEC) to ensure that their members carried out work to the appropriate standard. Therefore where work had been carried out by a member of an approved organisation it could be assumed that it complied with the Regulations and it would not need to be inspected by the relevant local authority’s building inspectors.

Over time this system has got a bit mixed up due to slightly differing standards applied to and adopted by various licensing organisations. This has led to suggestions that work done by one organisations tradesmen is of a lower standard than another which also causes an unfair competition model.

In an effort to resolve these issues the Government has already suspended the certification of new bodies and now plans to provide new criteria for certifying approved bodies. Existing bodies will have to be recertified under the new criteria.

The consultation itself is on the nature of these criteria, the new application process and the consumer protection aspects. The consultation closes on 19 March 2010.

Filed under: Uncategorized , Building Regulations, consultations, consumer protection

Mobile Homes Act Changes

On 16 December the Department of Communities and Local Government published its response to its supplementary consultation relating to changes to the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The supplemental consultation relates to the proposal to shift the fact-finding role in the making of possession orders form the Courts to the Residential Property Tribunal.

This is an interesting idea as it has previously been put forward by the Law Commission in their report Housing: Proportionate Dispute Resolution who suggested that some or all residential tenancy possession matters be moved from the Courts into a tribunal system. This was heavily opposed by District Judges themselves who seemed determined to guard this power. The Government appears to be trying to cover both bases in this consultation by leaving the power to make possession orders with the Courts but reducing their workload by moving the actual consideration of facts to a tribunal. Leaving aside the patent silliness of separating these functions and the concomitant duplication of effort this causes this might also be an indication of an attempt to adopt the Law Commissions proposals by the backdoor by shifting functions progressively into the tribunal system.

The consultation has been a bit of a blow for the transfer policy. 18 groups responded and there was an overwhelming rejection of the idea of separating the jurisdictions, largely for reasons, which have been outlined above. The Government has accepted this and will not transfer any part of the termination process at this time.

The consultation also asked about transfer of repairing cases to the RPT. Although the responses were again substantially against such a decision the Government has rejected the consultees views this and will now look to transfer repairing cases to the RPT. This is a surprising decision to say the least. The Government has justified it by making a clear split between the two roles. The RPT will consider on the facts whether the lack of repair of a mobile home is detrimental to the site to such a degree that termination of the agreement is appropriate. If it considers that this is the case then an application will be possible to the Court who will consider whether it is reasonable to terminate the agreement. No application will be possible to the Courts without an RPT decision. The Government seems closed to the fact that legal aid is unavailable for tribunal cases, to the probable increase in costs for all sides, to the potential for satellite litigation, and to the fact that the RPT is not fully integrated into the tribunal arrangements created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and therefore has an appeals system that does not function particularly effectively.

It is proposed that these changes will go forward on 6 April 2010, presumably by way of a Statutory Instrument making changes to the Mobile Homes Act. It is disappointing to see that the Government will be making changes that have not received much support in a manner which will allow for the minimum of Parliamentary debate.

Filed under: Uncategorized , consultations, Mobile Homes

Electronic Disclosure

It is a general requirement of legal proceedings that all documents relevant to a case be disclosed. A failure to do so at the appropriate time can have serious negative costs implications. This is generally well understood but the part that is less carefully considered is just how wide the disclosure obligation is, and just what that can mean in the modern information age.

Agents, landlords and tenants communicate in a wide variety of ways. They frequently email one another; send text messages, and even use twitter, Facebook and other social networking systems. In addition, it is now common for telephone calls to be recorded and all post to be scanned as electronic documents.

Rule 31.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules defines a document as “anything in which information of any description is recorded”. This definition is wide enough to cover all of the above categories of communication. In any case where disclosure is required, such as a disrepair claim by a tenant, it would potentially be necessary to disclose all such communication between the parties where it concerned the matters at hand. Many agents can do this easily for letters, some can do it in relation to emails, few are able to do so in relation to text messages and other forms of electronic records. It can also be difficult to generate the information quickly and in a reasonably accessible format.

When keeping data in electronic formats it is important to also consider the need for future searching of that data. Leaving all emails in an email application does not deal with the necessity of backing it up and leaves you at the mercy of the (often poor quality) search functionality of the email application you use. Printing out all emails and placing them on a paper file removes the ability to search these documents save for the tedious, error-prone, and expensive method of reading everything.

It is important for businesses who wish to make use of the power of electronic systems to understand that the prodigious amounts of data these systems produce must be kept, logically organised, and made available for searching in connection with litigation. While it is always unattractive to spend money on data management systems during an economic downturn it should be remembered that it is always best (and a lot cheaper) to organise data before it is generated and that software companies are feeling the squeeze too and may well be prepared to offer attractive deals.

Filed under: Uncategorized , disclosure, litigation

National Tenant Helpline?

We have recently been instructed by a landlord who has found themselves dealing with the amusingly named National Tenant Helpline. Contrary to what the name might suggest this is not a government funded (or any funded) organisation but a private company operating on a “no win, no fee” basis.

This organisation is a trading name of Leigh Legal Ltd and their modus operandi is to send aggressive letters to landlords and to scare them into paying up. They do not appear to be solicitors but rather another firm who are making money out of aggressively chasing for unpaid debts.

Unfortunately, the NTH does not seem to be aware of the recent HM Courts Service guidance (we mentioned it here) which requires that deposit protection claims are issued as part 8 claims. We know this as one of their tactics is to send a completed claim form to landlords without sending it to the Court and they are currently sending out the wrong form (If you are reading this guys it is an N208 form you need)!

Their clients may not be aware f this error but it is quite important as issuing proceedings under the wrong part will delay a claim and gives the defending party an (almost) automatic right to costs. It is also the case that a claim under part 8 must be served with all the evidence that the claimant will be relying on attached to the form. If they do not do this then they will have to seek the Court’s permission to admit any evidence which will incur further delays and costs.

Interestingly, their website states that they will take 15% of the money recovered from the landlord as a fee but the small print states that if they go to Court they will take 50% of the Court judgement. I expect this comes as a surprise to many tenants but I suppose the tenant still gets more money than they started with. It does ignore the fact however, that many solicitors (including this one) will take deposit return claims for tenants on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis without taking any money from the recovered deposit itself.

How they carry forward a claim is unclear as they are not solicitors and therefore have no right to sign claim forms on behalf of their clients or represent them in Court, presumably they instruct an appropriate person if it gets that far.

It is unfortunate to find private companies looking to encourage more litigation under the tenancy deposit provisions. Certainly tenants are entitled to have their deposits properly protected but the intent of the legislation was not to allow third parties to make money out of the situation. It is particularly annoying that a company can set itself up on the internet, with little or no pedigree and describe itself as ” the only tenancy deposit recovery specialists in the country”, especially when they are making such basic errors.

Our advice for any landlord who finds themselves dealing with these people is to instruct a solicitor. Actually, we would advise tenant’s to do that too!

Filed under: Uncategorized , deposits, Housing Act 2004

Service Charges….or not

The Court of Appeal in Morshead Mansions Ltd v Di Marco distinguished between service charges payable under a long lease and the liability of a member of a company to pay that company under its Articles of Association.

The claimant company owned the freehold and undertook the management and administration of the block of 104 flats. All the flats were under long leases, with each lease containing provision for the payment of service charges. The leaseholders also owned a share in the company.

Under the company’s Articles of Association, the company was permitted to establish and maintain capital reserve, management funds and sinking funds to pay or contribute to fees costs and other expenses for such things as maintenance of the block and the provision of services. The Articles allowed the company to require the shareholders to contribute to such reserves or funds in a manner approved by the shareholders at a general meeting.

At the general meeting, the shareholders approved the establishment of a recovery fund for the purpose of raising some £400,000 to redecorate the exterior of the block and to finance the provision of services. It was resolved that each leaseholder would contribute £4,000.

The defendant was a leaseholder and a shareholder in the company and refused to contribute to the recovery fund. The company issued proceedings to recover the funds and the defendant contended that such funds were service charges as defined by s.18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and that the company was not entitled to summarily decide to collect service charges which could be recovered under the terms of the lease.

The Court held that there was a distinction between the liability of a tenant to his landlord to pay a service charge, to which s.18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, applied, and the liability of a member of a company to pay similar sums under the Articles; the claim bought by the company related to the company’s right to recover money owed by the defendant as a member of the company and had no bearing on his position as a leaseholder, s.18 of the 1985 Act was irrelevant.

The key point to note here is that it is important for companies to be clear as to which of the two positions they are seeking to recover monies under and equally, leaseholders need to make sure they are not shareholders of the company if they plan to contest such payments.

The Government has recently consulted on default Articles for Right to Manage companies such as that in the Morshead case and we have previously posted on this issue.

Filed under: Uncategorized , long lease, service charges

OFT loses in Bank Charges- Implications for Foxtons

The Supreme Court has handed down their judgement in the case of OFT v Abbey National & Others (the ‘Bank Charges’ case). A copy of the judgement and a press summary can be found here.

The Court was not ruling on the fairness of bank charges themselves but on whether the OFT could investigate them at all. The banks were contending that their charges were part of the, so-called, “core bargain” between them and their customers and were therefore exempt from investigation for unfairness under the terms of Regulation 6(2)(b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. This regulations states that so long as a term is in plain and intelligible language terms are exempt from an assessment of their fairness if they relate “to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange”. This, “core bargain” term, was claimed by the banks to exempt their charges for unauthorised overdrafts and other similar charges from consideration. This argument was rejected both by the High Court and the Court of Appeal who in effect carried out a process of dividing charges into “core terms” which were exempt from consideration and “ancillary terms” which were not.

However, the Supreme Court has overruled both of these decisions stating that the banks system of charges must be seen as an overall package for the provision of a banking service which is ‘free while in credit’ and this falls within the exemption provided by Regulation 6(2)(b). They were critical of the exercise of dividing charges up into core and ancillary charges and questioned whether such an exercise could realistically be accomplished.

The Supreme Court made brief reference to the OFT v Foxtons decision but pointed out that the core bargain issue was, while relevant in that case, not vital as Foxtons’ terms of business were ruled not to be in ‘plain and intelligible language’.

The Supreme Court has not made any ruling, or any substantial comment on whether a ruling on unfairness of terms should be pursued retroactively.

Turning to the case against Foxtons. It was ruled that the average landlord would not view a renewal commission as part of the “core bargain”:

That [Foxtons' publicity material] is hardly likely to engender a realisation or acceptance that the renewal commission is part of the core bargain. As far as the landlord is concerned the core bargain will be getting the tenant in, in exchange for commission which would seem naturally to be associated with that activity, that is to say the commission payable on the first period’s rent.

However, this part of the ruling is now in doubt as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court were not prepared to accept the argument advanced by the OFT in the Bank Charges case that charges levied by the banks would not be acceptable from the consumers viewpoint. The Supreme Court felt that the matter should be viewed from the point of view of both sides and a balanced view adopted. It is not possible to simply state that one party would not have contemplated the charge and leave it at that. Allied to this is the view adopted by the Supreme Court that it is artificial to separate one charge levied as a part of a contract from other charges and deem some of those charges as “core” and some as “ancillary”. This would suggest that this exercise, as conducted in the Foxtons case, is inappropriate and that all the charges should be considered together as a part of an overall package.

It is quite likely that Foxtons will now seek to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Mann. Given that the banks’ charges must now be construed as a package they will no doubt seek to argue that their charging regime must be seen in a similar manner. They will still have the difficulty of their terms being held not to be in “plain and intelligible language” and this is an issue they will need to deal with. No doubt we will find out shortly if Foxtons are to renew their request for permission to appeal or withdraw it altogether.

For other agents, this decision provides substantial comfort. Provided that their terms of business and charges are expressed in “plain and intelligible language” it will be much easier for them to make the case that their charges are a part of an overall package and should be exempt from a consideration of unfairness. The importance of clear and well-constructed terms of business is magnified by this decision and the pressure is removed from many agent’s charging models.

PainSmith Solicitors has always maintained that the terms of business it supplies to agents do (and always have) express charges in a “plain and intelligible” manner. However, they have amended their terms of business as a result of the OFT v Foxtons case to make the charging structure even clearer.

Filed under: Uncategorized , OFT, Unfair Terms

Emergency Accommodation and EPCs

Many people in Cumbria are now looking for emergency accommodation. It is worth bearing in mind that there is a statutory defence to a requirement to have an EPC prior to letting a property in an emergency situation.
This is provided by regulation 42 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. This regulation stipulates that it is a defence to a prosecution under the regulations when:

1. The letting was to provide emergency accommodation for the tenant due to a need for urgent relocation;
2. There was no EPC currently in the possession or control of the landlord and there was insufficient time to reasonably obtain one prior to the letting; and
3. An EPC has been obtained and provided to the tenant as soon as was reasonably practicable after the letting commenced.

Obviously, any landlord seeking to take advantage of this exception would be well advised to obtain written confirmation from the prospective tenant that it is an emergency and they should also book the EPC as soon as possible, and ideally before the start of the tenancy.

Filed under: Uncategorized , emergency letting, energy efficiency

Tenant’s Notices to Quit, Holding Over and Double Rent

In these difficult times tenants are increasingly giving notice to end their tenancy and then seeking to withdraw that notice or staying for a few days beyond their original term. This practice is known as holding over. Where a tenant has given notice to quit, either under a break clause or in relation to a periodic tenancy, that notice is binding on the tenant even if it is defective and it can only be withdrawn or rescinded with the consent of the landlord.

Where a tenant gives notice to quit and then does not in fact vacate the premises, staying for a few extra days the provisions of section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737 come into play. This section states that to discourage tenants causing “great inconveniences … by … refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same” the landlord may seek double the sum normally charged in rent.

This can only occur where the tenant has given a valid notice to quit which the landlord accepts as a valid notice and where the landlord is, therefore treating the tenant as a trespasser while they hold over. In other words it can only apply where the landlord would have a right to seek possession through the Courts but is unable to do so because the tenant will not be remaining in the property for long enough to make it a practical option. The landlord may not seek double rent for a full period of the tenancy (as this would be inconsistent with treating the tenant as a trespasser) and must charge it on a daily basis. It should also be noted that failure to return keys promptly is not sufficient to engage this principle.

A landlord can recover his double rent in the normal manner from the tenant’s deposit or through the Courts although landlords are warned that, in general, neither tenancy deposit protection adjudicators or judges are familiar with this legislation and so a claim may be hard to pursue in practice.

It should be noted that this stipulation does not apply to tenants who remain in a property for a few extra days at the end of the fixed term or who try to leave part way through a period of a periodic tenancy. In both of these cases the tenancy does not end and the landlord cannot treat these persons as trespassers. The tenancy simply continues for another period until the notice is properly given.

Filed under: Uncategorized , notice to quit, rent, revision

Distance Selling

We have noted a marked increase in queries regarding consumer protection legislation. As such a little reminder about the The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 may be of some help.
These regulations are secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1985 and the intention behind them is to regulate distance selling business transactions. That is contracts concluded at a distance where there has been no face to face contact, which are for the provision of services. Tenancy agreements are specifically included within the general scope of the Regulations, because the tenant will have been supplied with a service, and so the Regulations will apply to landlords in distance selling situations and therefore agents should familiarise themselves with the basic provisions.
The regulations have 2 important effects for landlords regarding distance contracts, which the agent should ensure that the Landlord is aware of:
1. allow the tenant the right to cancel the distance contract
2. require that a landlord (or agent on his behalf) provides certain specified information to the tenant
The Regulations imply a right to cancel by the tenant into any distance contract under the Regulations unless this right has been specifically excluded by agreement of the parties.
Cancellation operates when the tenant gives a notice of cancellation to the landlord or the agent on his behalf if permitted. Where it applies, the right to cancel can be exercised by the tenant within seven working days of concluding the agreement if the Written Information requirements have been complied with, or within three months and seven working days if they have not.
Agents should note that the tenant’s right to cancel does not apply for the supply of services if the tenancy has started and the tenant has been informed that there will be no rights to cancel the contract once it had started. It is therefore recommended that agents attempt, where possible, to have the agreement signed in their presence at the time they release the keys for the property.
The Written Information that must be supplied to the Tenant prior to the signing of the tenancy agreement is mostly in the tenancy agreement itself and includes such things as the Landlord’s and where applicable the Agents contact details, the fees in arranging the agreement if applicable, the rent payable, the duration of the agreement and so on.
We have noted that many people assume that the Regulations apply to Guarantor Agreements however given that the Guarantor receives no service for entering into the agreement, this is inaccurate.
Incidentally, contrary to some advice we have seen, the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work Etc Regulations 2008 also does not apply to guarantee agreements as no service is provided and it does not cover tenancy agreement but do cover agent’s terms of business.

Filed under: Uncategorized , consumer protection, regulations, revision

OFT v Foxtons Rides Again (Maybe)

At 9.45am on Wednesday 25 November the new Supreme Court will give judgement in OFT v Abbey National & Others. This case will be well known to most as it relates to the ability of banks to make charges to customers who overdraw their accounts and on the level of those charges. There should also be an indication as to whether banks will actually have to repay money they have previously collected in charges. Quite apart from the impact this case may have on the UK’s leading banks, possibly requiring them to repay hundreds of millions of pounds in charges, there will also be an impact on the ongoing matter of OFT v Foxtons. This is because Foxtons sought permission to appeal from the Court at the most recent hearing after the judgement criticising aspects of their fees had been handed down. However, they specifically requested that the Court refrain from considering their permission request until after the Supreme Court ruling in OFT v Abbey National. Therefore, depending on the judgement of the Supreme Court, Foxtons will either withdraw their request or will seek to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal.
Additionally, there will be great interest as to whether the banks actually have to pay money back. If they do, this potentially opens the floodgates for previous Foxtons clients to claim return of fees paid to Foxtons which were paid on the strength of clauses deemed by the High Court to be unfair. This could end up costing Foxtons tens of millions of pounds. Naturally, an effort to make Foxtons return money will also have an impact on other agents who have already faced suggestions from landlords that their fees are unfair as well, notwithstanding the ruling against Foxtons being based entirely on the unusual wording used in their terms of business.
PainSmith will aim to post on Wednesday as soon as we have had time to digest the Supreme Court judgement. Watch this space!

Filed under: Uncategorized , litigation, OFT, Unfair Terms

TDP. New Case and a Summary

District Judge Burn at Bromley County Court has ordered a landlord to pay 3 times the deposit and to return of the initial deposit paid to his former tenants due to his failure to lodge the deposit with an authorised tenancy deposit.

In the recent case of Da Costa v Pinter the claimants were assured shorthold tenants whose tenancy had come to an end. The tenancy agreement required the rent of £1,950.00 a month and a payment initially of £4,200.00. A dispute arose with regards to the Deposit and the tenants issued court papers in order to recover the deposit amount. The court papers were then subsequently amended by the tenants for a further claim of £6,750.00 representing 3 times the initial deposit amount under the Housing Act (HA) 2004 section 214 (4). After proceedings were issued the deposit was then placed in an authorised tenancy deposit scheme.

The judge confirmed that she was happy that the £4,200.00 included a deposit of £2,250.00 and that the agent had described it as such. There was a clear breach of section 213 of the HA 2004 since the deposit was not paid into a scheme within 14 days of receipt. The judge was satisfied that the ‘initial requirements’ of a tenancy deposit scheme were not met and that the remedies of ss 213 and 214 therefore applied, that is the return of the deposit and an award of 3 times of the deposit. Undoubtedly, the judge was assisted in her decision by the fact that the tenancy had actually come to an end prior to the deposit being protected.

This case illustrates the ongoing problems both landlords and agents are having with the tenancy deposit schemes. The case law surrounding this area is mostly unreported however having viewed some judgements there does appear to be some uncertainty over whether the ‘initial requirement’ is to both lodge the deposit with a scheme within 14 days and to provide the prescribed information within the same period or whether lodging the deposit alone is enough. This uncertainty will no doubt continue until a court of record (High Court or above) is asked to rule on the point. Until such a time agents and landlords are warned that judges will decide each case as they see fit given that the decisions of the lower courts are not binding on other lower courts.

In order to assist with the uncertainty The Dispute service (TDS) has amended its rules and now confirm that its initial requirements are that the deposit be registered with the scheme within 14 days of receipt and that the prescribed information must be provided within the same 14 days. Consequently members that miss the 14 day deadline will automatically find themselves in breach of the initial requirements of the TDS and risk being ordered to pay 3 times the deposit.

In the case of Universal Estates v Tiensia MyDeposits have also been held to have similar ‘initial requirements’ to the TDS.

It is also vital that agents are particularly careful when landlords are registering the deposit themselves. Section 212 (9) (a) of the HA Act states:
References to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies.
This is of course open to interpretation but from an initial reading it seems that where the landlord fails to lodge the deposit the tenant may have a claim against the agent for the landlord’s failure to register. County Courts appear to support this position and agents may, therefore, wish to consider including a indemnity in their terms of business protecting them from the landlords failure. It may be prudent for the agent to seek confirmation that the landlord has registered with a scheme prior to sending the deposit to him or in the case of the custodial scheme that is Deposit Protection Service (DPS), sending the deposit to them directly. However this does not deal with the issue of relying on the landlord to ensure that the prescribed information is also provided to the tenant within the 14 day deadline. For a more ‘belt and braces’ approach, agents may wish to consider insisting on registering the deposit themselves through their own scheme membership.

The purpose behind the HA 2004 is to secure deposits and to return them quickly to tenants in the event of no dispute or to refer the matter to adjudication where there is, without the need for court. Landlords that do not secure the deposit within 14 days of receipt and then attempt to deduct monies upon the expiry of the tenancy are seen to be flouting the sprit of the legislation and agents need to ensure that they are not seen in the same light.

Filed under: Uncategorized , deposits, Housing Act 2004, litigation

When is a Trial Not a Trial……

When it is a hearing of course! The recent case of Forcelux v Binnie in the Court of Appeal reviewed the status of initial hearings under part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which govern possession actions. It seems that the first hearing before a Court is not a trial even though a possession order may be awarded and it may be the only hearing.

The key upshot of this is that it is far easier for a tenant to apply to set aside any possession order made at such a hearing where it has been made in his absence. This is because any attempt to set aside a decision made at trial can only be made by application under rule 39.3(3) and this requires that the party seeking for the order to be set aside must show:
1. He acted promptly;
2. He had good reason for his non-attendance; and
3. He has reasonable prospects of success at an re-trial.
This can be hard to do and therefore has the effect of preventing many re-hearings of matters where the defendant was not at the original trial. However, as the first hearing of a matter under CPR 55 is not a trial CPR 39.3(3) does not apply and the Court power to set aside the hearing is provided by CPR 3.1(2)(m). This does not require prompt action or the Defendant to show that they have reasonable prospects of success but merely requires a the Court to be persuaded that justice will not be done without a proper hearing.

In practice, this means that many more Defendants may have the opportunity to apply to the Court to set aside possession orders where they can show that the overriding objective of fairness will be best served by doing so. Agents and landlords should be aware that this may allow unscrupulous tenants to delay possession further and should also be aware that simply proceeding to a hearing without the presence of the tenant may not be the ideal situation that it may first appear to be.

Filed under: Uncategorized , litigation, possession, procedure

EPCs and the HHSRS

We have been surprised to be told of a few cases where Local Housing Authorities are serving improvement notices under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System on landlords because they have a very poor Energy Performance Certificate rating. Presumably this is on the basis if the ‘excess cold’ hazard profile in the HHSRS. However, an EPC is a measure of the cost of heating and lighting a property and says nothing about how warm or cold that property can be. Therefore it is hard to see on what basis action is being taken.

If anyone would care to give some more information we would be grateful!

Filed under: Uncategorized , energy efficiency, HHSRS, Housing Act 2004

Accuracy of Information on Websites

Many people will be aware of the problems of obtaining accurate information on the internet. As a law firm we frequently receive communications from individuals telling us what the law on a particular matter is. Often this is based on poorly written commentary or, more amusingly, on the law in other parts of the world.

For agents this is a particularly important issue as property advertising on the internet continues to grow. The risks of misrepresentation and misdescription (which for estate agents is prosecutable under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991) are growing and the modern phenomena for sites taking automatic data feeds from agents own software means that small (and otherwise inconsequential errors) can rapidly be magnified into major problems.

However there is some good news. A recent case in the Court of Appeal dealt with the liability of a company for incorrect information appearing on its website. In Patchett v SPATA the Court of Appeal held that the Defendant was not liable for a misleading representation on its website in relation to the quality of third party contractors. This was primarily because the website “urged independent enquiry”. The website made reference to other documents supplied by the Defendant and set out a series of enquiries that should be made before relying on the contractors mentioned on the site.

Agents would be well advised to take this on board by making clear on their websites that further details of properties are available and should be sought before reaching a decision on rental or purchase.

However, agents should also take care of the details appearing on their websites and on other internet portals and should make sure they have a proper procedure in place to review this information and check its accuracy on a daily basis. Not only will this help avoid mistakes but it will also provide a defence against any threatened prosecution under the Property Misdescriptions Act.

Filed under: Uncategorized , internet, litigation, negligence, property details

Mortgage Repossession Protocol Changing Behaviour

It seems that the new mortgage repossession pre-action protocol (which we talked about here) is having an effect on mortgagee’s behaviour with a dramatic drop in repossession actions.

Whether the protocol has been responsible for this or whether mortgagees are less inclined to take possession due to the difficulty in recovering their investment by selling the property is a moot point. The key issue from the point of view of the landlord and tenant professional is the increased willingness of mortgagees to appoint receivers and reach sensible commercial arrangements.

From the tenant’s point of view this means that they may be able to remain in a property they have rented by paying rent to a receiver appointed by the mortgagee. However, it should be remembered that the receiver is frequently not accepting the landlord’s responsibilities (just the money!) and so it will still be necessary to look to the landlord to repair the property.

For buy-to-let landlords the new willingness of mortgagees to reach sensible commercial arrangements coupled with a reduction in interest rates may be sufficient to allow them to weather the downturn. However, it is notable that many mortgagees are refusing to remortgage with buy-to-let landlords so this may not be sufficient.

Whether this new attitude from mortgagees will continue when they can more easily sell property remains to be seen but the current change in attitude will benefit landlords who make an effort to negotiate with their mortgagee if things are difficult.

Filed under: Uncategorized , comment, Law of Property Act 1925, mortgages

TDS, Evidence, and Bias

We often hear allegations that tenancy deposit protection schemes are biased towards tenants. This, in part, conceals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a deposit.

The tenant’s deposit belongs to the tenant and continues to do so until such time as the landlord becomes entitled to make reasonable deductions from it. Therefore the default position is that all the deposit should be returned to the tenant unless the landlord demonstrates that the deposit should be sent to them. This is not bias but the correct application of the law.

It is for landlords to show that the tenant’s deposit or parts of it should be passed to them by providing evidence of the tenant’s breaches of the tenancy agreement. This should be weighed on the balance of probabilities but the landlord will need to provide solid evidence that the loss or damage has occurred and that the valuation placed on it is realistic. Where this is not provided or the tenant provides evidence to the contrary then the money should be returned to the tenant.

In summary, the various schemes are no more biased than the Courts. They start from the proposition that the money belongs to the tenant and require the landlord to show that it should be given to them. Where insufficient evidence of that proposition is provided then the money will be returned to the tenant.

Accusations of bias toward tenant should perhaps be viewed as an admission that the landlord could not make a strong enough case. Looking at the statistics it can be seen that the schemes make awards almost equally to both parties. Given that they should be starting from the premise that the money is the tenant’s this shows that landlords do relatively well from scheme adjudications.

Filed under: Uncategorized , comment, deposits

Further Energy Performance Tweaks

The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England & Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 came into force on 10 August 2009.

These make a small amendment to the EPC regulations to allow for disclosure of EPCs, recommendations and Display Energy Certificates on the sale of properties. Where an EPC is produced for a property which is for sale and the rating on the certificate is in bands F or G the keeper of the EPC register (ie. one of the licensed bodies who register and maintain records of inspectors) is permitted to disclose the certificate to the Energy Saving Trust Ltd, a body licensed by government to provide information and advice in relation to energy saving in the home.

The objective of the disclosure is to allow the trust to provide information to the owner of the property on things they can do to improve the efficiency of the property and grants that might be available to pay for the improvements.

In general this will have limited effects on the sector except to encourage improvement of less efficient properties. This may be of benefit as these properties are generally less desirable and harder to sell although, in truth, most agents will already be pointing vendors and landlords towards the trust and its free advisory services in any event.

Filed under: Uncategorized , energy efficiency, Europe, regulations

Notices to Quit

A recent Court of Appeal decision sheds light on issues relating to Notices to Quit by tenants. In Bradford Community Housing Ltd v Hussain & Kauser the Court of Appeal ruled on the validity of a Notice to Quit which contains a saving provision and on whether the acceptance of rent or holding back on enforcement can invalidate a Notice to Quit.

Mr Hussain and Ms Kauser held an assured tenancy from Bradford Community Housing Ltd and after allegations of domestic violence their relationship collapsed and Ms Kauser (at the urging of Bradford) served a notice to quit on Bradford. As the tenancy was periodic by this stage the notice was valid to terminate the tenancy without the involvement of Mr Hussain following the well-known decision in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk. On the back of this notice possession proceedings were taken.

Before the Court of Appeal two arguments were made. The first was that the date on the notice was wrong and that the standard saving provision made the notice ambiguous as the saving provision and the given date ultimately referred to different dates. The second argument was based around correspondence between Bradford and Ms Kauser whereby Bradford had suggested suggested that they would not enforce on the notice to quit immediately and would continue to accept rent monies on an ad hoc basis. It was argued that this arrangement had the effect of renewing the tenancy and thereby made the notice to quit ineffective without the consent of Mr Hussain.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both arguments out of hand.
The Court was in no doubt that the use of the saving provision did not create and doubt in the mind of a reasonable recipient of the notice. This is an interesting point as the same question has been raised (although not at such a level) in relation to section 21(4)(a) notices and the possibility of ambiguity if they contain both a date and a saving provision. It would seem that this argument is now dead.
The Court was also not prepared to accept that a statement by Bradford that they might not immediately enforce the notice to quit and would in the meantime accept rent in any way acted to create a new tenancy. The Court made reference to the case of Clarke v Grant and made clear that mere acceptance of rent after the expiry of a notice could only create a new tenancy if this was the settled intention of the parties.

While this is a small case it provides clarity over one or two points of interest.

Filed under: Uncategorized , Housing Act 1988, litigation

EPC Directive Changes

The European Commission, the primary legislative body of the EU, has put forward proposals to make changes to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). CLG has published a consultation on the proposals to allow it to reflect the views of UK stakeholders back to the commission.

The proposals are in two categories. The first stage, which UK government supports seeks to clarify and simplify the directive. The other part seeks to expand and strengthen the directive. The UK government is largely opposed to this, in common with its general policy on Europe, and takes the view that many of the issues should remain with member states under the general principle of subsidiarity.

Looking at the key proposals they are as follows:

• buildings occupied by public authorities or where the public visit regularly are to have a Display Energy Certificate on display where the building is larger than 250 sq m as oppose to the current size of 1000 sq m;
• any commercial or domestic building which is renovated will also have to have its energy performance upgraded at the same time for which targets will be set;
• there will be minimum requirements for technical building systems such as boilers in commercial property.

Naturally this will cause increased costs for many older properties.  However, given the impact of empty building rates on commercial property and the consequent knocking down of some of these properties the impact may well be small.  In residential properties properties being renovated will have to have their performance improved but this would probably be done in the majority of renovations anyway.

The consultation is open for responses until 2 October 2009.

Filed under: Uncategorized , consultations, energy efficiency, Europe