We’re not talking about children’s pantomimes. Nor little men shooting out of bottles in clouds of smoke. We’re talking about a real-life jinni experience. It happened at Shivaji Park in India more than 70 years ago. If you are ever lucky enough to meet a real-life jinni, just remember to leave flowers and a glass of water. It may change your life.
With a new government on 5 July 2024 now a cert, it is time to think about what this means for UK conveyancers. Here are our own predictions for the year ahead.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024
As this non-controversial piece of legislation reached the statute book in the closing days of the Sunak government, it only remains for Starmer to issue regulations bringing it into force. We expect this to be amongst the first tasks for the new Labour government. The legislation is important because it changes the process for dealing with statutory residential lease extensions and enfranchisements as well as regulating freehold estate management.
Renters Reform Bill
This bill, which was already part way through parliament, was one of the legislative casualties of the general election. The key provision of this bill was the removal of section 21 non-fault evictions. Although the removal of section 21 evictions is not quite a roll-back to the bad old days of rent-controls, it will certainly make many would-be landlords and mortgage lenders think twice before going into this market. It may also lead to a loss in private rented accommodation as landlords sell up when tenants vacate instead of re-letting. When it was first introduced on 1 April, 1989, the ability of landlords to regain possession of their properties on two months notice was not particularly problematic because there was a healthy housing market, which made it easier for prospective tenants to pick and choose where they wanted to live and to negotiate how much they wanted to pay. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case because of the depletion of the social-rented sector. So our expectation is that the new government will waste no time in re- launching this bill and pushing it through to royal assent.
Right-to-buy
Unlike Scotland and Wales, we are not expecting the new government to abolish right-to-buy in its entirety but simply to scale it back, in terms of discount, to what was available when Gordon Brown left office in 2010. At that time, the maximum discount on a right-to-buy sale was capped at £16,000. Our expectation is that this £16,000 cap might be increased to reflect price-inflation but fall well short of the generous discounts introduced by David Cameron when he took power in 2010. What this means is that purchasing under right-to buy may no longer be the attractive proposition which it is today. There are also the transitional arrangements which will need to be put in place for right-to buy purchases which are underway at the time the new legislation is introduced. We are not expecting any changes to right-to-buy to operate retrospectively, which would mean that work-in-progress will be allowed to continue to completion of the transaction.
Reform of the Town Planning System
This is going to be the most difficult task for the incoming government as it will be trying to push back against a bureaucratic inertia which has built up over decades and in which the ‘No!’ lobby has remained supreme. It is not just about restoring the house building targets which had already existed until the recent abolition by the outgoing Conservative administration. It is about breaking through the treacle. The bottom line is that town planning is too politicised. With too many vested interests. It shouldn’t be like that. It’s about making the most efficient use of land. Key to breaking through this inertia is to simplify and speed up the appeals process, so that any developer who feels that their application is being frustrated by local politicians, can quickly get their planning application referred to a third party for determination.
V. Charles Ward
Solicitor and Legal Associate RTPI – 15th June 2024
General elections are always an exciting time for lawyers. Particularly when a new government – with new ideas – is almost a dead cert. Out with the old. And in with the new. But if you are expecting a ‘big bang’ on 5th July 2024, you’ll be disappointed. Once the initial furore of a new administration has died down, there will be a lull for a couple of months, when almost nothing happens. Then there will be the ‘Queen’s’, I’m sorry, the ‘King’s’ speech, when the new government will outline its legislative programme. So what are we likely to see in that legislative programme?
Well for a start, I would expect to see the Renter’s Reform Bill coming back to the floor of the House and pushed through to royal assent. Also, secondary legislation to bring into force the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received royal assent in the dying days of the Sunak government. So I thought that I’d look at the Labour Party Manifesto just to see what we’ve got in store. Nothing much, it hasn’t yet been launched. Just a few generalisations about economic stability; reducing NHS waiting lists; new border controls; setting up a new energy company; cracking down on anti-social behaviour and recruiting more teachers. Is anyone going to argue with that? And haven’t we heard all that before? If I turn to the Lib Dem manifesto, I discover that Ed Davey is going to launch this at 11am tomorrow. And all while falling off a surfboard. I shan’t be tuning in.
If I outstay my welcome in a camera-controlled car park, I will probably be issued with a penalty charge notice.
That notice would, in the ordinary course of events, be posted to the registered address of my motor vehicle. But supposing I don’t receive that PCN because I have moved away from my old address and have not yet got around to updating the DVLA with my change of address? And supposing I don’t receive any of the follow-up correspondence, during which time the original £60 PCN has accumulated to £600? The first I know about it, is when a bailiff comes knocking at my door. But Mr Bailiff, I didn’t receive anything?
Tough! Parking enforcement is entirely a matter of process. No allowance is made for oversight. Fortunately, the law is not always like that.
Supposing a civil judgment is entered against me in my absence for legal proceedings which I knew nothing about. Even if the papers were correctly served, I might still have good grounds for asking a district judge to set aside that judgment if I can convince the judge that it would be unfair to let the judgment stand, because I had an arguable defence. A similar issue arose in relation to two recent cases at the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber, which concerned situations where papers had been correctly served by a local authority but had not come to the attention of the intended recipient.
In the first case, Tabassam v Manchester City Council [2024] UKUT (LC), Ms Tabassam was held to have had a ‘reasonable excuse’ for not complying with a statutory improvement notice which had been sent to the proprietorship address stated on her land registry title, as well as well as to the property itself. But neither notice reached her and she therefore did not respond. In default of her response, Newcastle City Council imposed a financial penalty against her for failing to comply with the improvement notice.
The reason why Ms Tabassam had not received the improvement notice was that she had moved away from her old address and had not updated the land registry record. She pleaded ‘reasonable excuse’. Her plea was upheld as it was said that the council could have found a more up to date address if it had searched other internal records.
In the case of Newcastle City Council v Abdullah [2024] UKUT 140, the city council had adopted a landlord licensing scheme under the Housing Act 2004 for the area within which Mr. Abdullah’s property was situated. A licence issued by the council permitted Mr Abdullah to manage premises at 29 Gillies Street subject to standard conditions requiring him to provide certain information on demand. The council later requested information from him by letter sent by ordinary post and addressed to him at an address he no longer occupied. The key question in that appeal was whether a demand which never came to his attention was nevertheless an effective demand for the purposes of the licence condition. If it was, Mr. Abdullah’s failure to comply with that condition would have been an offence contrary to section 95 (2)(b) of the Housing Act 2004 unless he could prove that he had a reasonable excuse for that failure.
In this case, the upper tribunal found that the notice had been properly served, even though there was other e-mail correspondence on an unrelated matter between Mr. Abdullah and the council which quoted a more up-to-date address. Nevertheless, the upper tribunal found against Mr. Abdallah on the question of whether service of the notice was valid.
What made Mr Abdullah’s case different from that of Ms Tabassam was that he was under a legal duty to notify the council of any change in his address. However, the upper tribunal left open the issue of ‘reasonable excuse’, which was remitted back to the first-tier tribunal.
One of the puzzling things about these two cases is why they were ever allowed to reach the Upper Tribunal. Wouldn’t a wiser local authority, in those circumstances, simply have accepted the owner’s claim that they had not received the earlier documentation, and started the whole process again? Yes, starting again might be annoying. But it’s a damned sight cheaper than losing a ‘reasonable excuse’ argument in the upper tribunal.
Have I read it correctly? Is US law firm Quinn Emanuel really offering a £180k annual starting salary to newly qualifieds at its London office, starting June 2024? Seriously? Wow! Just shows how competitive the London legal market is at the moment. Everyone wants the best. And they’re prepared to pay.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 