Last Wednesday I woke up to breaking news about the death of a young celebrity. It was someone I’d never heard of. Someone who had fallen from a hotel balcony. There was film footage of a young reporter holding her microphone and standing in the street amongst a group of even younger women weeping and holding candles. So I switched channels from Sky to Grood Morning Britain. Same news. Same footage. So I switched again to BBC Breakfast. Guess What! Same news. Same footage. Was there really no other news to report? Nothing from the Middle East or Ukraine? Nothing happening in the US election? In desperation, I switched to BBC Parliament and watched Prime Minister’s Questions.
Then a couple of days ago another celebrity came on the scene, complaining about the way her former partner’s death had been reported. Would she have preferred that it had gone unreported? That would have been fine by me.
What’s this I hear about the cost of first class stamps rising to £1.65? Do I care? My own experience is that it does not make any difference whether you post a letter first class or second class. It will get there when it gets there. Whether that’s next day or the next two days; or next week. So don’t be fooled. Back in the 80’s I posted a second class letter to my parents in Bournemouth, which they received the same afternoon. Years later, I posted a letter to India, which arrived almost the next day. How amazing was that? And what’s this about the Royal Mail saying that they are not going to deliver second class letters on Saturday? Are they being serious? I’m heartbroken.
Haven’t we learned anything from 1920s prohibition? When stupid politicians voted to ban alcohol consumption across the United States, and in so doing, created the model for organised crime, which still exists today, and lives on In the drug cartels of South America. So shouldn’t we be de-criminalising instead of criminalising otherwise lawful social activity? But here we go again, with Starmer’s plan to ban tobacco smoking in pub gardens and parks, where it does not affect anyone except the smoker.
Sunak started all of this nonsense with his talk about raising the smoking age every year, so that generations going forward will never be able to legally smoke. He did it to take away attention from the housing and cost of living crisis which his government had created.So are we going to see police officers frisking down young people, just in case they are hiding cigarettes? That’s going to be great for community relations! Now Starmer has picked up the reins.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a smoker. But I don’t like to see anyone being put out of work just because someone wants to make a political point. Nor do I wish to see the creation of a new criminal underground. Haven’t we got enough criminals already? Or police chasing round after kids and pub- smokers, when they should be catching burglars and shoplifters. If Starmer wants to ban something, he should ban online gambling.That causes much more psychological damage and addiction. As well as family breakups.But no one seems bothered about that. In fact, I’d guess that if you’ve got the wit and the know-how, anyone could start up a gambling platform from their own back bedroom.You wouldn’t need to employ anyone. And you wouldn’t need to rent any premises.You just pay for the software and the marketing.Then sit back and watch the cash roll in. It almost seems too easy.
One of the first actions for the new government should be to bring into force the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in the dying days of the last conservative government. In this article, we look at Part 7 of the 2024 Act, which introduces new protections for freeholders, whose titles are expressed to be subject to historic rentcharges. Here, we are not talking about estate rentcharges, which are a legitimate means of ensuring that everyone pays their fair share towards estate maintenance. We are talking instead about the old fashioned rentcharge, probably created more than hundred years ago, where tiny sums of money are charged out of property and payable to the owner of the rentcharge.
Until the Upper Tribunal decision in Roberts v Lawton [2016] UKUT 395, lawyers never gave much thought to this type of rentcharge. Who cares that the landowner is liable to pay another party a couple of quid a year, even if they knew to whom the money is to be paid? But in the Roberts v Lawton case, the Upper Tribunal held that failure, even to pay those few pounds, could result in the rentcharge owner exercising their rights under Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, to walk in and take possession of the property or – more likely – grant a lease out of the property to its own nominee, which was what happened in the 2016 case. The effect of creating that lease was to freeze the title to the property, making it un-saleable and unmortgageable, which meant the property-owner could be held to ransom. Because that’s what the 1925 Act said that the rentcharge owner could do.  And that is currently still the case until the new legislation is brought into force.
The creation of new rentcharges of this type was abolished more than half a century ago by the Rentcharges Act 1977. But there are many thousands of rentcharges of this type still in existence, giving rentcharge owners the powers of enforcement set out in the Law of Property Act 1925. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent ownership of rentcharges of this type, commonly known as ‘chief rents,’ being traded, just like stocks and shares.
Once it is brought into force, Section 113 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, will introduce a new section 120B into the Law of Property Act 1925, which will prevent rentcharge owners from exercising any of their rights of recovery until they have first given the property owner a 30 day ‘wake up’ call, by serving formal notice demanding the outstanding rentcharge arrears and providing the following additional information:
The name and address of the rent owner as well as a calculation of the arrears and details of how to make payment;
Enclosing a copy of the instrument creating the rentcharge and proof of the rent owner’s title to that payment.
Even property-owners who receive such a notice but are dilatory in their response may still be protected by the new section 121(1A) of the 1925 Act, which will prevent rentcharge owners from going into possession of or granting themselves leases from the owner’s property in relation to any arrears covering a period after 27 November, 2023 (although the old remedies will still be available for pre-existing arrears recovery). It means, effectively, that, as regards arrears accruing after 27 November, 2023, rentcharge owners will be limited to what they can recover through the small claims court as a simple monetary debt, which is how it should be.
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.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 