Uncategorized

A quick fix to Britain’s housing crisis

An issue which president-elect Andy Burnham is going to have to grapple with is fixing Britain’s housing crisis. I’m sorry Andy but it’s not as simple as imposing rent controls. That is not the answer. It is the old issue of supply and demand. But supposing there is a way of increasing that supply by half a million homes overnight? It’s not going to solve Britain’s housing crisis. But it will certainly make a difference. I’ll show you how it can be done.

There are already around half a million homes standing empty in the UK which could help ease Britain’s housing crisis if only they could be brought back into beneficial use and occupation. I’m not talking about those properties standing empty because they are going through probate or which are on the market but have yet to find a buyer. No – I’m talking about those properties which are long-term empty and with no realistic prospective of ever being brought back into beneficial use and occupation. Many of those properties have been empty for so long that they are no longer fit for human habitation without expensive capital works to put them back into repair. So what can be done?

Statutory powers already exist to enable councils to take over long-term empty properties and bring them back into beneficial occupation and use. These include the empty dwelling management orders (EDMOs) introduced by the Brown government and contained in the Housing Act 2004 as well as the powers which Local Housing Authorities have under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 to compulsory acquire empty properties to bring them back into use. So how many EDMOs have actually been made in the past 20 years? Take a guess!

229

Yes really! I don’t have any figures for single property CPOs. But I’m guessing that it ain’t many. The problem is that these procedures are cumbersome and expensive to be of any practical use by local authorities. At a guess I would say it would cost between £10K and £50K to cover the investigatory and legal processes as well as additional costs of making the property fit for occupation. And the council don’t even own the property. CPO is even more expensive with the prospective cost of fighting a public inquiry if the owner objects. So budget for at least £50,000. And that doesn’t even include the cost of acquiring the property together with the additional owner-entitlements including statutory basic loss and disturbance payments. We need something simpler. Something that does not require massive upfront investment on the part of the local authority before they can even take control of the property and bring it up the standard. What we need is a simple power of sale, which enables a local housing authority to take possession of an empty property and put it on the market. Such powers already enable housing authorities to force the sale of an empty property to pay for a council tax debt or any environmental costs which can be charged against the property. But that can only work if there is an outstanding debt. All that the owner has to do is to pay off that debt to make the threat of repossession fall away. What is needed instead is a general ‘power of sale’, which would enable the local authority to take over the property and put it into auction. If capital works are required to make the property habitable, the terms of sale will need to ensure that the incoming purchaser is under an obligation to carry out works to bring the property back into beneficial occupation and use. As an added bonus, there will be no cost to the public purse, as the scheme will be entirely self-financing, with all administrative and legal fees being taken out of the proceeds of sale. Is it really that simple? Doesn’t there also have to be a process? Here is what I propose.

Where it becomes apparent that a property has fallen long-term empty without any realistic prospect of it being brought into beneficial occupation or use without local authority intervention, notice should be served on the registered or reputed owner of the property giving them an opportunity to explain why the property is empty and their proposals to bring it back into beneficial occupational and use. Having considered any owner-response, the local authority will then decide whether to issue a legal document giving itself a statutory power of sale against which the owner will have a 21-day opportunity to appeal to a magistrate’s court. Once the power of sale is confirmed, the authority can then immediately re-secure the property and put it in for auction. If major capital works are required to put the property into a habitable condition, this will have to be made clear in the sale-conditions and responsibility placed on the contract purchaser to put the property back into repair and bring it into beneficial occupation and use. The local authority will then handle the sale and the balance of the sale proceeds, after redemption of any prior mortgage and having taken out the cost of the process, will be placed into a separate deposit account to the credit of the former owner. Do you think it would work? Let’s at least give it a try.

Uncategorized

Shared Ownership Leaseholders: New Protections Explained

Britain’s quarter million shared ownership leaseholders may be feeling that that little bit more secure with the coming into force of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 on 1st May 2026. The same with apply to any other leaseholder whose annual ground rent had escalated to more than £1,000 in Greater London or £250 elsewhere. Before the changes took effect, any of those leaseholders could have been thrown out of their properties if they fell behind in their rent by as little as 2 months. This was because annual ground rents above the £250 [£1,000] threshold were technically classed as assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988, which meant that a ground landlord could end the tenancy on grounds of rent arrears by serving notice under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 instead of going through a long-winded forfeiture process.Shared ownership leases which had not staircased to 100% were always caught within this trap because the rental element would always exceed the assured tenancy thresholds.

The change does not mean that shared ownership leaseholders or for that matter any other leaseholder cannot be evicted for rent arrears. It just means that the ground landlord has to go through the full forfeiture process which applies to all residential leases and which will always give a tenant relief against forfeiture if they can make up the rental shortfall and reimburse associated legal fees. What the Renters’ Rights Act did was to take any fixed term residential lease for more than 7 years outside the assured tenancy regime.

Shared ownership means that the residential leaseholder does not own their property outright until they have staircased to 100% but instead owns only their share in the property and pays a social rent on the remainder. The purpose of shared ownership is to enable anyone who cannot afford to buy outright, a means of getting on the housing ladder.

culture, Uncategorized

Like Old Soldiers – Imperial Measurements Will Never Die

Like old soldiers, our ancient system of Imperial measurements has been fading away since the 1970s. But will they ever die? I’m not going to bet on it.

The mandating away of our 1000-year-old system of measurements has always been in fits and starts. It started with a push in the early ’70s before stalling in the ’80s and ’90s until it became illegal in the Millennium year to sell loose goods in pounds and ounces or equivalent linear measures. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t sell you a pound of apples, so long as I measure them out on metric scales and mark them as 454 grammes. There is also nothing to stop me buying a pound of jam (sorry 454 grammes) from my local supermarket, just so long as I don’t call it a pound of jam.

It’s also strange that whilst we cherish other parts of our ancient heritage, like sea shanties or steam engines, it’s somehow ‘uncool’ to talk about feet and inches or gallons. As if it’s something only old people do. And of course editorial policy now dictates that all UK news and weather has to be delivered in metric terms. So how long do you think that it’s going to be before imperial measurements fade out completely from our language? Here is some food for thought.

The rationale for metrification has always been that Britain carries out most of its trade with Europe and therefore has to provide manufactured goods to a metric specification. But isn’t that also true for America, the world’s largest economy, if it wants to trade with Europe? Yet Americans remain wedded to US Customary Units which, with some variations, follows British Imperial units. It’s why if I step out of Orlando Airport I can buy my quarter pound of fudge and eat it in 90° heat whilst stroking an alligator. It’s also why it will always take 9 million pounds of thrust to launch a NASA moon rocket, never 40 Mega Newtons. And here are a few more morsels for you to digest.

  • Every time you switch on your 56-in wide screen to watch an American movie or documentary you are immersed in another world of feet and inches, pounds and ounces and miles. Never kilometers.
  • Whilst American Tech dominates the world, US Customary Units will always remain supreme. Even the AI on your computer.
  • Have you noticed the way that Americanisms are creeping back into our language. Like corporate counsel instead of company solicitor? Many of these are Old English words like ‘attorney’ which traveled across the Atlantic two centuries ago but are now making a reappearance, including some UK firms now styling themselves ‘Attorneys at Law’. How cool is that?
  • And remember that it will only take one UK broadcaster to change its editorial policy.

Just one other thing. There is one part of our culture which has never been metricated. Look at any clock face and you will see an ancient system of measurement dating back to the Babylonians. Likewise the 360° in a circle.

Law

The Dangers of Relying on AI for Legal Cases

Using AI is like taking legal advice from a man in a pub. You might come away with some good tips. Though you wouldn’t want to trust his advice without first checking it out. Particularly if you are preparing a case for trial. But so many lawyers seem to do just that. Particularly those still at the learning end. They’re the ones getting caught out. But it is usually their employer who gets the grief.

Think of AI as an advanced search engine. It does more than simply searching out internet content and presenting it to you as a series of links. It goes further by mashing up that content and then reconstituting it as its own work. So is it surprising that AI sometimes gets it wrong? And there’s another thing. Everything downloadable from the internet is somebody else’s intellectual property. So when you are reusing that mashed up content and passing it off as your own work, you are opening yourself up to a damages claim.

Don’t get me wrong. I sometimes use AI myself. But only a starting point. I might ask it to list out some cases relevant to the matter with which I am dealing. I will then go on to the BAILII website and search out those cases and download the PDFs. But sometimes my AI has responded with an answer which I know is wrong. So I will always defer to my own professional judgment. Because that’s what I’m paid to do. And yes – I can always sense when something has been written by AI.