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.
Thousands of people have done well out of Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy, including Labour’s Angela Rayner. But not everyone has been so lucky. Amongst the least-lucky are those leaseholders who purchased high-rise flats under right-to-buy and are now facing sky-high service charges. Amongst those, are the leaseholders in Verulam House in Hammersmith Grove who are facing service charges of between £17,500 and £21,500 for window replacements which they say are not needed. One of the problems for right-to-buy leaseholders is that although they are the ones picking up the bills, they have little say in the matter because they will always be in a minority.
Although residential leaseholders now have extensive rights to take over the management of their flats, they can only do this by acting collectively. For example, the statutory ‘right to manage’, introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, can only apply where a majority of qualifying leaseholders are on board with it. But this is of no help to right-to-buy leaseholders where the majority of flats in a high-rise block are still owned by the local authority and let out as social housing. The most, to which those right-to-buy leaseholders are entitled, is the right to be consulted over proposed service charges under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. But even this right to be consulted, is cut down for right-to-buy leaseholders because they do not have the same right to nominate their own contractor as is enjoyed by other private leaseholders. And even the prices may be higher as councils are constrained in their choice of contractor because of the need to comply with rigid procurement regulations, which means that they cannot shop around for the best deal.
What point was Hancock actually trying to make at the Covid-19 inquiry, when he talks about ‘doctrinal failures’ with an emphasis on cleaning up after a pandemic instead of preventing it from happening? Is he saying that Britain should have locked down even harder and faster? So why didn’t he just say so? Why wasn’t he challenged on what he was really trying to say? More importantly, why wasn’t he challenged about leaked messages suggesting he favoured “scaring the pants off everyone”? Well it didn’t scare the pants off me.
For me, Hancock’s evidence was just too hand-wringing; too vague; and too short on specifics. It just didn’t get to the point. Who cares about his personal feelings? We want facts. And it all went unchallenged. It was all too ‘polite’ for my liking. Too cosy.
My worry is that is that the key questions regarding the justification for repeated lockdowns; mask-wearing; and standing in line outside supermarkets will not even be addressed at this public inquiry. Instead, it will assume that every one of these measures was necessary because that was the policy which the government had decided to follow. Even though the government was being led by the nose and was frightened of being seen as out of step with other jurisdictions, even with Nicola Sturgeon. And there was no opposition. Any alternative view was quickly shut down. We also know that the inquiry won’t even have the most crucial evidence to determine how these decisions were made.
Yes-Boris Johnson has surrendered his WhatsApp messages to the inquiry. But these only go back to April 2021. What is the point of that? Instead, we had the excuse that his earlier phone had been compromised. But those earlier messages must still exist somewhere in the ether? And what’s all this about the government bringing legal proceedings against its own inquiry to stop information going into the public domain? We want to know what messages were exchanged between ministers and top civil servants at the beginning, in March 2020, when government policy suddenly changed from herd immunity to lockdown. If it was all just to “scare the pants off us”, we need to know.
The real message I take from Partygate was that those at the top of government who were attending those lockdown parties knew that they weren’t putting their health at risk. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing it. So why the pretence? Why impose restrictions on everyone else?
Yes-we all know someone who has died of covid. Just as we all know people who have died of heart attacks. Of cancer. Of suicide. But I’m sure that no account will be taken of that at the public inquiry. Nor of young people who studied for years for examinations which they were never allowed to sit. A teacher-assessment is never a substitute for a robust external examination. It’s too subjective. And will anyone challenge the nonsense of closing down someone’s livelihood whilst at the same time printing money out of a bankrupt economy to pay them to stay at home? And then there’s the fraud. The cronyism. If we can’t afford to pay nurses, how could we have afforded to pay for that? And why did covid quickly become the excuse for any poor customer service? “It’s covid innit.”
Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe later in the inquiry we will get some serious questioning of the knee-jerk policies which caused so much damage to so many people as they swung backwards and forwards? Maybe. But I’m not going to put money on it.
Why have UK businesses become so energy dependent that their entire existence can be held to ransom by recent price-hikes. Of course, energy is required for most industrial processes including refrigeration and food preparation. But why this obsession with artificial lighting and air-conditioning?
I have worked in offices all my adult life. I have never asked to sit behind tinted glass in artificial lighting and freezing air conditioning. It has been imposed on me. I’m sure that it hasn’t always been like that. I would much rather enjoy natural light and the ability to open a window if I feel stuffy. It means that I won’t have to take a pullover to work because of the air-conditioning, when the temperature is a sunny 100° outside. Think about the energy cost of creating this unnecessary artificially controlled environment? Think about the climate. It’s the same with shops. Why do shops always have to have the lights blazing to prove that they are open?
A couple of weeks back, I visited my local pet shop to pick up some cat litter. They had recently moved premises and had not yet had the electricity connected. But the natural light coming in through the window was good enough for me to find my cat litter and complete my purchase.
Three months ago, there was a power cut at my local Tesco supermarket. Again, there was enough natural light for me to complete my shopping. It was just as I could not get it through the till. Today I went to the local Internet cafe at the end of our road to print out some documents. I was pleased to see the staff sitting in natural light and only using electricity to power their computers and printer. At least they are saving some money.
Going forward, the construction of commercial buildings has to change, with windows that open and which maximize the amount of natural light coming in during daylight hours. Also, a change of mindset. Is that so difficult?
It’s because the market has become distorted. It’s not just about too many buyers chasing too few properties. It’s not about interest rates. It’s because first time buyers are not just competing against other first time buyers but also the buy-to-let market. So why the distortion?
It’s because councils no longer own sufficient stock to meet their social housing responsibilities. Too much of it has been sold under right-to-buy and more than 40% is now owned by private landlords. So councils have to rent-back properties on their own estates to meet their statutory housing responsibilities and pay those inflated costs through the housing benefits system. It is that state-subsidised demand which has pushed private-sector rents and property prices through the roof. Everybody loses: the taxpayer; first time buyers; private renters. Everybody that is, except the private landlord. V. Charles Ward, Author, ‘Housing Regeneration: a Plan for Implementation’
BRUCE AND HOLLY 