How would you like to earn £648,000 just for doing your job? Well, that’s the average Eversheds paid to each member of its LLP up to the year ending 30 April, 2023, according to the Law Society Gazette. And that’s just the average. The highest paid member of Eversheds LLP received a cool £3.1m in the same year, up from £2.3m in the previous year. Of course, most lawyers don’t earn £648,000 a year, even those who are at the top of their game. In fact, if it’s money or after, you may be better off applying to be a London tube driver. They earn an annual average wage of £59,000. With overtime, you might even top £100,000. And they are still going on strike for more!
Young publicly funded barristers, barely scraping the national minimum wage, would envy that kind of money. No wonder, they also went on strike in 2022. So why do we do it?
Maybe it’s not just about the money. Maybe you don’t fancy driving down long dark tunnels in isolation in the early hours. Maybe you want a job where every day is a little different and where you can act on your own initiative. If so, you’ve come to the right place. Let us introduce you to the world’s most exciting profession.
Lawyers have existed since the beginnings of civilisation. It was lawyers who created our system of common law. Our unwritten constitution. If you get caught up in the criminal justice system, it may be the skill of your lawyer which determines whether you will be acquitted or possibly convicted, even for something which was not your fault. Don’t think that because you are a law-abiding citizen you can’t be caught up in the criminal justice system. Tell that to the 736 sub postmasters who were wrongly prosecuted as result of the defective Horizon Computer. Tell that to the 78-year-old pensioner, who was arrested for murder after a burglar had died breaking into his house. So what makes a good lawyer?
It Is not just about knowing the law. Anyone can do that. It is more about your attitude. It is primarily about your enthusiasm for what you are doing.
Enthusiasm is contagious. Clients will sense it. They will know that you are the right person to look after their interests. Enthusiasm means that you don’t mind putting in the hours to get the right result. Enthusiasm means that you will take the trouble to develop the best working relationships, not only with your clients, but with everyone else with whom you deal in your work. Enthusiasm means that you will not cut corners. Is that you? Then you should think seriously about a career in the law. That career could be more accessible than you might think.
The ability of any individual or company to promote their own legislation has always been part of the British constitution. In the 18th century, it was private acts of parliament which enclosed our common land. It was 18th century private legislation which created our network of canals and later on, the railway system which we use today. It was also Victorian private legislation which enabled the laying out of the first commercial cemeteries, to meet the increasing demands for burial space, which hitherto had to be accommodated within over-full parish churchyards. One of those first private acts of parliament created Kensal Green Cemetery, which is still in use today. But don’t think that private legislation has fallen into disuse.
Within the past five years, we have seen private legislation promoted by the owners of cemeteries to increase the availability of burial space, by enabling the owners of those cemeteries to reclaim unused burial space and offer it for resale to other bereaved families. It is a facility already afforded to cemeteries owned by London Boroughs. The first of these, second wave, Acts of Parliament was the New Southgate Cemetery Act 2017, promoted by owners, Westerleigh. This was followed in 2022 by the Highgate Cemetery Act. Now going through Pariament in 2023 is the Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Bill, which is the first private cemetery legislation to be promoted in living memory by a local authority outside of London. We can also be sure that Bishop’s Stortford will not be the last private cemetery bill, until parliament legislates to give all cemetery owners the right to reclaim and make best use of unused burial space to meet the needs of the wider community.
Essential Law for Cemetery and Crematorium Managers published in 2021 and commissioned by the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management is, as far as we know, the only up-to-date legal textbook on cemetery and crematorium law. The standard reference book on the subject had previously been Davies Law of Burial and Cremation. But that hasn’t been published for nearly 20 years and, as far as we know, no further edition has yet been scheduled. In the meantime, our Essential Law book fills the gap.
Don’t believe in ghosts? You will believe after you’ve met a real-life jinni. You will believe after you have been taken to a rooftop seance at an hour past midnight and seen a glass fly into the air and smash into the face of a sleeping child. You will believe when a young man, who was a champion swimmer, tells you how he was drowned in the waters of Hawkesbay and his body was washed towards the rocks at Sandspit. And all because it rained and he forgot the sadhu’s warning. You will believe!
This week, we read in the newspapers that planning applications have fallen to a 16-year low. According to reports, only 2,456 projects were granted planning permission during the second quarter of this year. Can it really be that low? The Home Builders Federation has warned that if this trend continues it will lead to a reduction in housing delivery of 44,000 homes a year, which would see supply for England fall to levels not seen for a decade. So what is it all about? If we want to get Britain building, shouldn’t we be issuing planning permissions like confetti?
According to Stewart Baseley, HBF Executive Chairman, the opposite has been happening, with the policy environment becoming increasingly anti-development and anti-business, resulting in a sharp fall in the number of homes being built. He added, “Fewer homes being built during an acute housing crisis has clear social implications, in particular for young people, and we’ll end up reducing the economic activity and cost jobs”.
So why is government policy skewed so much towards the ‘no’ lobby. Why at this critical time, has Michael Gove abolished the requirements for councils to have a five-year land supply for housing development? We’ve seen the same attitude towards green energy in which the ‘no’ lobby has been given a veto to block on-shore wind farms and the electricity pylons needed to transport green energy.
If you don’t believe there’s a housing crisis, look around you. Young people sleeping in shop doorways. Thirty-somethings still living with their mums because they can’t afford to get something of their own. Desperate renters in a bidding war with each other, just to find somewhere to live
It’s not just about supply and demand. The housing market itself has become distorted. Young couples cannot get on the property ladder because they are being priced out by a cash-rich buy-to-let market which is subsidized by the housing benefit system. Councils are having to rent back properties on their own estates just to meet their statutory housing obligations. The creation of a new class of middle-people plugging the gap in the provision of social housing, whilst at the same time taking their cut from the housing benefit system.
What has caused crazy state of affairs? What are the solutions? We start with the causes.
The causes of Britain’s 2023 housing crisis
There is no single cause of today’s housing crisis. There is a multiplicity of causes which, over the course of several decades, have converged together to create that crisis. Here they are.
The statutory right to buy
Remember that when statutory right to buy was introduced in 1981, there was no buy-to-let market. Most homes sold under right-to buy remained in owner-occupation until the private rental market opened up in the 1990s. We now have a situation in which, in some areas, up to one half of ex right-to buy properties are owned by private landlords and in many cases rented back to the same local authorities which originally sold them. There is also an intrinsic unfairness in the State gifting massive subsidies to a select group of people whom, by chance, are already in subsidised housing, at the expense of everyone else. Yet the government appears wedded to it. And why should any local authority invest public money in the provision of new social housing if, in three years’ time, they might be forced to sell it off at a discount.
Not enough new homes being built
I suspect that one of the reasons why fewer new homes are being built today than in previous decades, is that housebuilding is no longer as profitable as it once was. There are too many things getting in the way: one of them being shopping-list planning policies which are not only administratively slow but can also reduce the viability of a proposed housing development. It is quite right that any housing development must stand the cost of upgrading the public infrastructure required to serve the new development, including education and social facilities. It is also fair that someone who benefits financially from the grant of a large residential planning permission should contribute to the cost of providing affordable housing to those who cannot afford to buy privately on their estates. The issue is that the process of securing on-site affordable housing through the planning system is too cumbersome. Many housebuilders would quite willingly make a financial contribution towards the provision of off-site affordable housing, just to get the development of the ground, and which the local housing authority could then spend as it thinks appropriate in providing new affordable housing. And wouldn’t many cash-strapped housing authorities prefer a simple cash-injection?
The number of empty homes
According to official statistics, during 2022, the number of long-term empty homes in the UK stood at 248,633, up 5% on the previous year and which has increased annually since 2011 (excepting only the covid years). But it can’t be right that someone can choose to keep a residential property empty and unused whilst other people do not have a permanent home. In many of these cases, there are reasons why the property has remained empty for many years instead of being brought into beneficial occupation and use. An owner may have died or moved abroad or into residential care. Their whereabouts may have become untraceable. Perhaps no one has taken out probate in relation to a deceased’s estate. Maybe a property has remained empty for so long that it has become dilapidated and uninhabitable. But that doesn’t help Britain’s Housing crisis.
What about re-introducing rent controls? Wouldn’t that solve the crisis in rental accommodation?
Sadly no. Statutory rent controls never worked in the quarter century they were in force until their abolition by the Housing Act 1988. And there is no reason to suppose that they would work any better now. Until statutory rent controls were abolished at the beginning of 1990, safe legal advice to anyone thinking of renting out their home was “don’t”. Letting out a residential property carried too much risk. It wasn’t just that you might never get your property back. The rents you received for your property were not in your control. A rent tribunal could reduce it to a derisory level. Not only would you be accommodating another family. You would also be subsidising their living costs, even if they had more disposable income than you did. No one is going to volunteer to do that. It’s why someone working temporarily abroad might have been advised simply to leave their home empty, instead of renting it out to someone else.
What about the proposed abolition of section 21 no fault evictions?
Abolishing section 21 will give existing residential tenants a little more peace of mind, provided they keep to the terms of their tenancy. But it’s not going to make private renting more affordable. When section 21 was originally introduced by the Housing Act 1988, it was to give prospective residential landlords the confidence to let out their properties safe in the knowledge that they could get back vacant possession when needed. Back in 1988, no-fault eviction was not problematic for residential tenants because it was a new market and there were so many alternative properties to move into. Contrast that with the position today, where someone evicted from their existing rent the property might have nowhere else to go.
What about stamp duty holidays? Would that help first time buyers?
The problem with stamp duty holidays is that it leads to a stampede as desperate homebuyers try to get their purchases completed before the holiday ends. It’s great for Sellers, who can soak up the value of the tax-break by increasing property prices.
Here are the solutions which will work
Abolish right to buy. Now! It won’t solve Britain’s housing crisis. But it will stop it getting worse. It will also give councils the confidence they need to invest in the provision of new affordable housing, safe in the knowledge that it will be kept permanently available to meet future housing need.
Make the town planning system 100% self-financing, so lack of resource can no longer provide an excuse for delay. Where local planning authorities are still unable to determine planning applications within the statutory turnaround time, give developers the right to refer their planning applications to independent expert determination. The statutory appeals process is just too slow.
Give housebuilders the option of meeting their affordable housing responsibilities by paying a commuted sum to the council’s housing revenue account, to be spent on the provision of new affordable housing in the way the council considers most appropriate. Councils would love it. So would housebuilders. Make it part of the community infrastructure Levy.
Free up 248,633 long term empty homes by putting them in to public auction. Councils already have powers to compulsory purchase long term empty dwellings. But like the Empty Dwelling Management Orders, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, they are too slow and cumbersome to be of any practical use. So why not create a swift summary process whereby councils can apply to a magistrates’ court for an order forcing the sale of a long-term empty property?
For councils and other social housing providers to use the current collapse in the housing market to replenish their housing stock. There is no better time to do it. Yes-interest rates are currently high. But they won’t always be high. And think about the massive savings in the housing benefit budget if councils no longer had to rent back from private landlords to meet their statutory housing responsibilities.
Now the big question.
Will these ideas work in solving Britain’s Housing crisis? You can bet they will!
Last Sunday I copped a parking ticket. It was a complete surprise to me. I had parked in the same car park on and off for more than 30 years without problem. And isn’t parking supposed to be free on Sundays and public holidays? But not this Sunday.
It was only after I had arrived home that I noticed the little yellow package tucked behind my windscreen wiper. I opened it up to find that I was being punished for not having paid for my parking. That can’t be right? It’s Sunday? Perhaps the traffic attendant made a mistake? Perhaps he had forgotten what day it was? Perhaps he had woken up in the morning thinking it was Monday?
So, I drove back to the car park and looked around to see if there is any obvious sign about charges being introduced for Sunday parking. But there was nothing obvious except in the small print on the machine itself: which had recently been closed down because it was no longer taking cash. And there were no tickets being issued. It is now all pay by phone. Which brings me to another question. If there are no tickets to display, how does a parking attendant know whether someone has paid or not?
When I returned home again with my parking ticket, I searched online to try to find out when the rules for this particular car park had changed, as regards the introduction of Sunday charging, and what signage had been displayed to alert motorists that the rules have changed. But nothing came up. So, I posted a question to an AI platform and got back some Goan food recipes.
As I was not prepared to give up, I bowled in a statutory freedom of information request to the council which had issued the notice, asking the same questions. Now I don’t know how much it costs to answer a freedom of information request. But by the time it has been bounced around between different council departments and someone has spent half a day digging out this obscure piece of information and sending it back to me, I would not have thought that there would be much change out of £500.
As I had nothing to lose, I made representations to the local authority, explaining that I had made an honest mistake. As I expected, the council were quick to reject my representation. Though again, someone would have had to be paid to consider my representation and respond formally to it. If I wanted to take my appeal further, I would have to go to the parking adjudicator.
Appealing to a parking adjudicator is a double or nothing game because, by the time you make your appeal, you would already have lost your 50% discount for early payment. But my personal view is that if you think that a penalty charge notice is unfair and that you have grounds to appeal, you should appeal.
I went back to my AI platform and asked whether lack of adequate signage alerting me to the changes, provided grounds for appeal to a parking adjudicator. This time, instead of Goan recipes, it directed me to a government website, “Key Cases-London Tribunals”.
The first thing I noticed about this government website was that there are so few key decisions. I had been expecting thousands. When I typed ‘Sunday’ into the search- bar, nothing came up. I then browsed the section headed, “Adequacy of Signs and Lines”. There were only six key decisions, most of them dating back to 1990s. Really? So, it did not take me long to browse through the list. The key decision which most closely resembled my predicament was Mary Fairburn’s appeal against a notice issued by the London borough of Bexley, again where there had been a sudden change to the charging regime, to which she had not been alerted, except for the small print on the machine. In that 1997 case, Parking Adjudicator G.R. Hickinbottom expressed surprise that Bexley Council had not cancelled the notice on the basis of a genuine mistake but felt that he had no power to cancel the notice because an infringement had occurred.
So on the basis of Mary Fairburn’s decision, I will not waste time and further public expense pursuing an appeal to the parking adjudicator and will pay the PCN at the discounted 50% rate whilst I still have a few days to do so. Which brings me to a final thought.
I don’t understand the mentality of town centre parking policy. If you really wanted to help struggling local businesses, wouldn’t you want to make it as easy as possible for motorists to park their cars and get on with their shopping? No wonder town centre retail and entertainment chains like Wilco; Debenhams and Cineworld have gone to the wall.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 