The FeSeratirn of Rivate Ebidents' AB8ociatius

11 Dartmouth Street, London SWlH 9BL Tel: 071-222 0037

August 1991 N E W S L E T T E R Number 22

There is, a t long l a s t , the hope that fo r the vast majority of leaseholders - their days of misery and frustration may be ending. The new G o v e m n t prcpo-

sals re camonhold and leasehold enfranchisement are the best news we have had for many years. The all-inportant factor is grur right to buy.

The batt le is not yet won and w i l l be opposed by the land and property m e r s but their conduct has been indefensible and cannot continue.

You m y fee l that the present proposals s h l d be varied o r altered t o suit your m ciraanstances, e.g. a dubious charity as a landlord, o r a landlord Living in a pent-house a w e you, etc. Please write with f u l l de ta i l s and ask for further consideration of your cirannstances to: Bartwa Ann Collins, Lord Chancellor's Deparbnent. 26-28 O l d Cueen St., Landon SWlH 9 H P .

Camnents on the G o v e m t ' s proposals for leasehold enfranchisement should be sent t o Eric Carter, Roan N l 1 / 1 1 , Departrent of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SWlP 3EB. See leaf le t enclosed with th i s Newsletter.

We mst look t o the future - h m are you going t o buy and w a g e your block - a new ccnpany - a new lease? You may f ee l that there is tm much involved

@ and beyond you. Rmmber, as owner you can appoint a person o r persons t o manage your block and you m change o r f i r e them i f unsatisfactory. You have control and your block w i l l reflect hew you exercise that control.

Finally, we would welame mre mmbers on the Cannittee. Please ring the office and we can outline w h a t is involved.

The Federation of Private Residents' Associations Ltd is a canpany, limited .marantee, registered under nmber 1992130. Registered Off ice as above.

. . - .. .. .-

We sadly report the deaths of two of our Execxltive Ccmnittee nmbers: Constance Bedrett and Rayrrond Holdsworth. W e are great ly indebted t o both Constance and Ray f o r the work they d id f o r t h e Federation.

Mr Rick Morgan, Treasurer of Linden Park Manag-t Ltd, F la t 4 , Linden Grove, London SE15 3LP has written t o thank the Federation f o r the advice received from M r s Philippa Turner on the draf t ing of their contract with a firm of lrwaging agents. Burnet, Ware & Graves Ltd, 54-56 Queens Road, London SE15 2QJ have n w been appointed f o r a trial period of 9 months. M r Morgan would be gra tefu l t o hear of any experience tha t o ther Federation m r s may have had of these agents and w i l l be happy in fu ture t o share h i s carpany's expe- rience of t h i s f i rm with other n-e&ers.

Apologies

Poynders Court Residents' Association. W e apologise f o r the e r ro r in your e' telephone nmber in Newsletter No. 2 1 and repr in t your request i n f u l l below:

POYNDERS CWKP RESIDENTS ' ASSOCIATION seeks inf o m t i o n regarding f m o l d e r s : ADAGIO PIWPEKPIES (d i rec tor : M r Michael Lawson) and agents: HALLAM ACMINIS- TRATION SERVICES (director : Mr L.G. J a rv i s ) . Please contact Secretary t o Poyn- de r s Court Residents' Association on 081-673 2580

IIEWSLETTER 22 Page 3

The Salt rroperties Case

122-130 POWIS STREET. WOOLWICH. LONDON. SEle BNL TELEPHONE: OBI -ES4 0055 EXT.

This rnactar is being dealt 6253 by:- Martin John

The Federation of Private Residents Associations. 11 Dartmouth Street, London SWlH 9BL.

YOUR REF.

DATE ~ q * March 19'31

Dear Pladam/Sir,

Heeers Sam Antonelli & Rueeell Roee Nunnv Ltd/Midrome Ltd. 147 Clapton Common. London E5.

Thank you for recently sending me details of residents groups of the above landlords. I am circulating the attached information t o them in the hope that it will be of some interest and use.

I enclose details of a recent eucceasful prosecution of the above landlord by the Warrington Trading Standards department. The case was taken under provisions within 8.40, Administration of Justice Act, 1970 relating to "puniehment for unlawful harassment of debtors'.

Both Antonelli and Rose were convicted on 5th March 1991 on four crlminal counts and fined £2.000 with over El.000 costs against each. They were charged as acting in their roles as Secretary and Chairman respectively of Salt Properties Ltd, the managing agents for many of their properties nationwide. which went into voluntary liquidation just a few weeks ago.

Residents groups with these companies/individuals as their landlords m a y wish to consider whether this mechanism could be used by their own local COUnCils to mount further prosecutione. nore details about tt~ls procedure can be obtained from Pls Jan Owen, Warrington Trading Standards drpartmertt Tel : (0244) 603705.

I hope that this information is useful t o you and wiah you the best of luck in your campaigns.

Your8 faithfuly,

Private Sector Housing Officer, GREENWICH HOUSING AID CENTRE.

A SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH

CE. 218 .

The S a l t P r o p e r t i e s Case

From: ORBIT NEWS SERVICE. WARRINOfON (0925 91592)

ELDERLY householdnrs wre t e r r i f i e d when they received l e t t e r 6 from a p roper ty company t h r e a t e n i n s b n l l i f f a c t i o n wi th in 1 4 dnys u n l e s s a l l ege . d e b t s were paid.

The l e t t e r s warnod of l l k e l y involvoment wlth w s o l i c i t o r e , b a i l i f f s , judgna. removal vans and pub l i c auct ions.- M g l s t r a t e s heard at Warrington t h l 8 w u k .

One couple were 60 frlg1,tnned they could not s l e e p a t n jgh t , Vorrl.ed every t ime there was a knock a t t h e door and ware a f r a i d t o l eave t h e i r trorpa, t h e c o u t ~ t voa to ld .

Samuel Antonel.li, of Clnpton Common, London €5 and Ru66el Ro6e, of Batt~une Road, Stoke Nevtngton, London N16 each denied four charges t h a t they harassed peop1.e wlth dhmnndr t o pay d e b t s c l a l . m d t o be due:

Af ter a two-day t r i n l t h s y wore both found g u i l t y on a l l f o u r charges, f l n e d £2,000 and ordered t o poy c o e t s of C11125 and f1,OZS r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Four s i m l l a r chsrgns agnjnfit S a l t P r o p e r t i e s Ltd, o l e o of Clapton Common, were not p r o c e ~ d e d v i t h bOCOU6e t h e cour t bad no ev idence - tha t t h e 'company had been lnformod of t h a haarl.ng.

But Mr Duncan BauJd, pror;ocuting, c l a i m d t h a t at t h e r e l evan t time, Rose and Antonel l i wore chnlrmnn n n d ' s e c r e t a r y of t h e compeny.

#r P e t e r Carey, of Park Ror~d, Qr.ford, warrington 6sf.d h e had l i v e d i t h i 6 homo f o r 10 yoare Wan, . s t ~ o r t l y o f t e r being n o t i f i e d of a change of leacehold owner, ha rece ived a l e t t e r fr6m S a l t P roper t i e s , vho s a i d they were t h e management a ~ e n t a f o r t h e properly.

I t e t a t e d t h n t unlocs rant wne pnid bp t he "due date" b a i l i f f s would be i n s t r u c t e d Withln 14 days.

"1 wos p r e t t y annoyod t o r e c e i v e a l a t t e r Sn thlo tone out of t h e b lue , " he sa id .

La te r he r ~ c a i v e d 0 n 0 t h ~ r letter o f f e r i n g him t h e o p p o r t w l t y of buying t h e l e n w f o r £150, p l u r a f69 admin i6 t ra t ion f ee . I n v i e r at t h o f a c t thnt t h o l e a s e coa t only L3-a-yonr ha thought i t excess ive .

He a160 rcca ivod a documnnt e n t i t l w d ,Uncle 9m'e Ne l e t t e r ' , $ 4 5 ~ ~ ~ 4 by Y" s o i t Proper t les, uhich again o f f e r e d - the oppor tun i ty of purchase t h e l ~ a e h o l d . I t e t a t ed : .If you 'don't buy, anybe you enjoy t h e excitement of & l i e 1 to re , bnf l i f f a, judgon." r e k v d l voria and p~~bXlc euct ion&

Ib. Carey s a i d h e took t h e statemorit t o bo a v e i l e d t h r e s t .

" I t r o c w d to be p ~ r t i i n S p r e s s u r e on people t o purchaoe t h e f r eeho ld t o g e t out of t h e vicio118 c i r c l e o f receivins t h l o s o r t of l i t e r a t u r e , . he

NEWSLETTER 22 Page 5

The Salt P r o p e r t i e s Case

sntd. "Anythj.ng t h a t e f f e c t s your homn, which 1s your b igges t s i n g l e l n v e s t w n t , i e very wur.rying, he so ld .

He wee concerned about t h e e f f e c t t h o letter8 mjght have on neigI140Ur6, somn of who wre e lde r ly , and c e l l e d a p r ~ h l j c meeting. To hj.6 6IJrprl6Q, people turned up from a vjdo sreo d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t had very l i t t l e pub1 i c l t y .

The cour t henrd t h a t wtlcn Kr Thomnfi Lsyzel l , of Lodge Drive, Houlton, Northvich, receivod t h e l c t t e r s he and h i s wife wrr, vary u p ~ e t .

He 6afd: wEvory time t h e doorbtrll rang m were i n f e a r of t h e b a i l i f f s . T l ~ o l e t t e r s s s l d they vnuld p lace a cnut ion on t h e t i t l e deeds. I thought i t would cos t between t200 end t j o o t o keep t h o b n i l j f f s away. We were f r lghtencd t o leave t h e house. "

Ur Devld Jones, of Ami!ln~;ldr Road, Elleemere Pgr t , un6 under t h e impression h e hnd nlrondy bolrght t h e f r eeho ld of h i s house from a prevloljr; owner. He was alnrned &Inn he recelvod t h e l e t t e r s .

*Wu vondared when t h e l a l l i f f s vould come; he ~ a j d .

Rose t o l d t h o court h e was only b r i e f l y d d i r e c t o r of S n l t P r o p e r t i e s end Antonel l i never was. m e compnny o p ~ r b t e d from 8 bu i ld ing occupled by a numher of o the r f i rms, fnc luding Munny.Ltd., of which Antonell$ v8s e d i rer . tor . About s i x o r ocvnn people nomc:d Antone l l i worked i n t h e b u i l d i n g , inc luding two named Snm.

The bul ld lng we6 a l s o used ns s p1.ace of Jewish prayer and f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposefi.

The only work he ever he ever d l d f o r S a l t P r o p o r t i e s wtre t o r e p a i r e computer and al though he ,v ie l tod t h e bu i ld ing on o t h e r occas ions i t wae t o use t h e "in-horrse synagogue: H e hod ceased t o bo s d i r e c t o r of S a l t a t t h e t l w , t h e l e t t e r s wrs wr i t t en .

Mr Nlcholos Hopklnfi, f o r Antonell i , s a i d h i s client hnd no p a r t i n wri t ing t h e l e t t e r s . But i n nny event they ware merely tough bus iness l c t t e r s , l i t t l e d l f f e r e r ~ t t o one w i l t e n by a bank manager c a l l i n g $ n en overdraf t .

m e r e wore no t h r e a t s of phys jca l v io lence o r of "sending t h e boys rorlnd" and t h e l e t t e r 6 d jd not con ta in t h r e a t s t o anyone's home.

"Hmre we had a property c o m p e n y ' b ~ ~ l n g up f r e o h a l d s end then t r y i n g t o eel1 them on. I t nay not be t h e n i c e s t way of nnklng s l i v i n g but many companjns do i t . fhe l e t t e r 6 d id t f y t o poin t ovt t h o advantages of owning onoe 6 f reehold . END

NEWSLETTER 2 2 Page. 6

36 THE D - ~ Y ~LEGRAPH. WEDNESGAY. MARCH n, I ~ I . =.:. .,..: .....-,.,........ >.:... . . .i .... . - .T.C : . . . . . . . . . C- .... .\. ...

, PROPERTY t:

Following a recent article highlighting long-term a

disadvanta~es of a retirement lease. Tom Rowland meets anoth<r EOUD of ~ensioners who feel t r a ~ ~ e d

come to iell: T h e RLHA c l a i m s t h e y

boucht at a d i s m u t rn the 6rsl p l a t e . T h e y d i s p u t e th is . claiming they aid the full mar. ket price. an$ tbat the lame clawback now prevents th& h m movine. . .

Maoy of& s i o m who bought a d e c a r o r more ago. are now lertlne fnil urd n n d m o r e c i r e t h a n t h e y a r e entitled to on RLHA vhuncr designed to o t u for the fit. active retired.

But because of the unprece- dented house n"ce irdlattoo of the late E ~ g h d u they now bod they have not enough capital len ah- d m to buy s o m e where more iu i t ab ie . The clawback anancement will net tbe association £20.000 , o r more rn many uses, puslung the o- olT the bonom of -

the housing h d d u . T h e RLHA h a s recent ly of variation, a s a new style

started to u r u c ncw l u s c r to h s c had been issued m a ~~~~ - -- ........ ........

incoming residents ntb stgoif: m o t buyu. icantly more advantageous Mr Be. Young. dm? SIure0de.r t u r n s - thev will tor.reolcd: " T h c u l o c l l t ~ o a r . . . ............... Pa? a 025 k;&t &&back position is that this change in for u 'ch year of occupation . r u m n d u terms is immaterial. I n s t ~ d o f M p u ~ t ~ t t m i - SO long as exis t ing lease- nation. The older leases con. holders haw suffered no b a n - tain a clause which raystbat all cia1 loss." leases in eacb development The lener goes on to say. "It mus t be substant ia l ly t h e is only fair to &form you that * m e . and the implicatrons of the n u n e r bas already been this clause are at the mtm of nursucd bv another lease-

~ ~~

the case. b o ~ d u i i 6,; piiDt ofobmiiGg Mr M b w Holliday of Glm- legal advice on both slder, urd

wood Court. a 20 But block the m n d u u a n was that the ............ o w e d by the RLHA in Sidcup. a swia t lou had acted @&I) w o l e to t b t arsoclatlon 10 pmperl) and rn the in tvestsof Ortober last year a s h o g boa lessees as a wbole to the dem. the residents could get a deed m m t of no ind iv idua l s . "Yo~~

refuses t o reveal who t h e luwba ldc r d e m d lois. .........

The Glenwood burl resi- dents did not m l i s e until tbey u w it reported in this mlumn two weeks ago that the-rrsi- dents at Tower House Close. CucMeld - urotber associa. tion scbeme-are still banling with the i r landlords over exacrlv this issue. Mr hollbday's wife Wuifrtd

Is n. has bad a r m k e and no* . d u r from almost comnltte - - ~~~ ~

memory loss. She cm not be leh alone for long and Glen. w w d Court dver uot bave the facilities to look af ter he r ~mper ly .

The RLHA b a s voluntarily opted into the Nat~onai House

Building council sheltered housing code of pnctim. It says it decided to abide by the code e i g h t m o n t h s a g o a l t h o u e h i t h a s nei ther . informd all of its residents nor complied ritb wme of the major provisions of the code. including giving purchaser informatioo packs t o eacb leastbolder that set out tbeir right; b d the services their landlord will provide.

The code also encourants

dents association. wbicb' war fomed primarily to campaier for a change in the leases, dic not get much enmunge~neo! from the RLHA.

Oltht 16 owners living in tb+ block 10 originallv said tbc! wanted to found j reridcots association but tbey clain RLHA omciais told them the! needed 60 p r Rnt

ssible owoers. d u m i : &that four flats were vacant

Oneowner r b o bas moved tc a Masonic nurring home bu- stdl owns her Rat eveotuall! joined to push the numben ul lo 11. The residents' associa tion has now been remgniser andhaslSmemben.

"A residents' arsociatio~ that does not represent t b ~ majority of tbe lessees is no doing a s w i m to anybody Therefore the RLHA rerog niscs residents' association: that have membership of 61 per mat. the standard recog nised by the DOE." said Young

When it was pointed out tba wcU ,over 60 per cent of tbr existing residents at Glenwool Court bad been in fa>,our Young satd: "We would take : maronable and flexible vie* on that."

The Glenwood C o w corn mittee maintains tbat all th? residents paid the full marke price for 1be.u Bats,.altbougi the assoc~atton main sold at below market v*. .'

Mr and M n Hollidar pa!, 549.500 in 1987 for their on, bedroom Bat, having negoti ated a GOO reduction with th, previous owner to bave on. window double glazed. Holli day rays he checked price amvnd the a m and is sure t h

no element if subrid! Without t b c associario: crnrtsslv anreeinn to fora, i o k e of ;1s ciawhaik in favoi of tbe buyer. or m a b g a car. erant to the ourcbarer loer ;odd not ba<e been any elt men1 of subsidy in tb l ourchase. . Holliday still has all the doc uments from his purchase i~ 198i and nowhere does tb. RLHA make clear tbat tb. Bats were sold at prices belo, tbe marke t . or by wha percentage.,

The concll~ation service ha access to hamsters who ar.

g repared to work for free 0: eball of sheltered bousin:

resideots with legal pmblenv and Sue Cole says she IS keei tobelp in this case.

RLHA residents wbOWaUll. fi,~I out details of the Join legal action should conlac solicitors Tbornpron Sm:!: and Puxoo who are a c t w 0: bebalf of the Tower Hour Close residents. Telephon. 0521 817028.

Re~roduced bv courtesv of- The l h i l v 'Foloaranh n 3 r r - . ~ e m

NEWSLETTER 22 Page 7

LONDON WEU(LY TMES, FN.y. Msmh 8.1991

Tenants' group is named

7HE PRESSURE p u p for the protaction of private le. m t s . vhow formstion was recently mentioned in thau mhmm, has nuncd iuelf the L w h o l d Enhan. chisamu Auocistion.

The o r g m i ~ say chc response to ow mention was '8tuming ud ovawhelming' ad were full of aise for che cfiectivcrrrt of the Kenrington k Chctrco &rs.

5bc LEA wnmm numbers arc 071.937 2620 fm h e h lscrrtmy md 071-937 9021 for thc membership sc. ClcrPY.

Gndiords m court THE TENANTS of the 22S.bt Oakwmd Court In Kenslagton ur r t to (.he High Cwr~ actlon agalnst h l r W l a d s , l subddhry of the Freshwater oroD. . .

l imp. q b r y allege iaUun to mrry wl mentlsl npslrs. WWnl D g k t of the proprty, wiIh a questlon over r~la charger. The - Whlch Is bound to be of Immense Interest to other tenmts who belleve thrm- r l v t s to be In slmllsr ml t lons - b due to come to

Damp response to a flat refusal

bolder, who .ppan b Lvc tbmbmonwrd

u r l l m l t s b r m a p ~ y 3iEY'- d the oPlnpnla ndan t lon ~ . d t h e m n t u t ~ rcdM h v e - a d k i t d e -

r m y l u c d n o t b c L?*!X. told.lhemlon-

~ ~ h ~ l d ~ ( r n r n e w h a t rcecntrlc) h u rrld nothing except his mUlng ir his

3- I l l t u . B c ~ m y l h t l l o t d l o w r a n t o t b c

roof, 0, m p l e "will be IiumltlY removed" (deb. our mt b delcrlorattn pnieuy m d n ~ t o ~ f m t w o l l l d

L v e llttle chance #Wen the state of the roof m d this )mpurc at the moment. What on ieawholden (there u e t h m d u n l a d d l t l m b t h e M o l d e r in the h o w ) do in a dtultlon lllrs u s 7 8 You muat consult a d c i - * prom Y. getting the other

h b o l IB" rs to Join you If at all pcsslble. You will need to mnsider applying to the anvr for dther or botb of:

(a) UL order d m the m m l o r m to dect nefs~ary m m h to tbe roof, md (b) order appointing a

d v e r and mnaager of the MDeb ol htp.

These mders ue avdlable under recent Lmdlord and ~ t ~ . Alsuchanader an be mxhtmd rgllnsc the nvmd tbc lkch3

UUe u unUona. er m y wdl dcdde

to#tepinmd.pumenspoMl. M H t y m c t n l @ c k a r c h s t y o u m & t o t a k e U m a c t l o n .

THE FINANCIAL - TImS 1.5 June 1991

Page 8 mWSmT'I!W 22

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

. ~ -~ -... - ~ .. --. Telephone: Dlttct lines (071>210 8510.8514

12 July 1991

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, today made an oral statement to the House of Lords concerning commonhold and related matters. A full text follows.

"The Oovernment has decided to introduce for England and Wales

a scheme providing for the freehold ownership, and communa1 management, of flats and othet interdependent buildings w i t h

shared facilities.

"This new scheme, called commonhold, was proposed in 1987 in a report of a Working ~ r o u p of OPficiols chaired by Mr Trevor

Aldridge, a Law Commissioner. After arranging in 1988 for draft

legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect

to these proposals, the Government iisuad a consultation document in November 1990 inviting comments on the draft legislation.

This document also lralsed a number Of issues Of major principle relating to commonhold and leasehold enfranchisement. More than

1000 replies were received, and the Government is grateful to all those who commented.

"It is proposed that commonhold should be available for all types of land use - whether residential or comercial. Conversion of existing premises to the commonhold oystom will be optional,

although it may be necessary to make provision to override the objections of a small minority of leaseholders.

NEWSLETTER 22 Page 9

"In addition to providing for the freehold ownership of flats and

other relevant properties, the scheme would establish standard

democratic management arrangements, though with scope for

vari8tions, and this in turn would simplify conveyancing. There would also be a scheme for orderly winding up for use where, for example, the commonhold property is damaged beyond repair or has reached the end of its useful life.

"My Lords. the Government has also decided to give long-

leaseholders of residential flats collestively the right to buy from the freeholder, at market value, the freehold interest in

their block.

"It is proposed that this right will apply to properties containing two or more flats held by qualifying long-

leaseholders, where at least two-thirds of the flats are held by

qualifying long-leaseholders, and where not more than 10% of the

internal floor space, excluding common parts. 1s used for non-

residential purposes.

"If at least two-thirds of the qualifying long-leaseholders vote in favour of purchasing the freehold, and the number voting in

0 favour comprises at hast two-thirds of all householders

ordinarily residing in the block, the landlord will be obliged

to offer the freehold for sale to them.

"Xn conjunction with the commonhold proposals, the Government has

decided to implgment, with modifications, the main

recommendations in the Law Commission's Report on Bansfer of

L and - Th e Law of Positive and W i c t i v e Covenants [Law Corn. No. 1271. These recommendations are designed to produce

satisfactory arrangements for the imposition on fraehold land of

positive and negative obligations which can be anforced against successors in title to the original owner of the land.

"My Lords, these changes will benefit a% least 1.5 million

leaseholders of flats: They underline our commltment to home

HEWSIETTER 22 Page 10 .

ownership- They will greatly extend many people's freedom to taka responsibility for their own affairs. I am confident that

thoy will be widely welcomed.

"Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time for It can be found."

. .

Notes for E d i w

1. In 1986, a Working Group of officials was established under the chairmanship of Mr Trevor Aldridge, a Law Commissioner charged with producing a cadominium scheme for England and Wales. In 1987 this Working Group published i t s report entitled 'Commonhold: Freehold Flats and Freehold Ownershi2 pf Other Interd~~endent Build- (Cm 179). This report pur forward a scheme to regulate relations between t3e owners of separate properties which lie in close proxinity to oach other and are interdependent.

2. In 1988, it was announced that the Government had errensel for draft legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to the commonhold proposals. In November 1990, the Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper inviting responses to draft legislation (Commonhold: A Consultation Paper (with draft Bill attached), Cm 1345).

E d i t o r i a l Note: The s u b j e c t o f Commonhold was debated at l e n g t h i n t h e House o f Lords and t h e House o f Commons on 1 2 July 1991. See Hansard f o r t h a t da te .

cYHmImm

Letter t o the chaimm, J m s Robinson, frcm the V i c e Chahrm, Reginald Jones.

~mbrosd& Avenue London SWlP loG

30 July 1991

D e a r James,

I 've now looked at the Gwernmnt statenents insofar as they r e l a t e t o Cammn- hold ( a s d i s t inc t fmm leasehold enfranchisanent on which I ' ve wri t ten a separate letter).

AU that the min statement says is tha t the Government have decided t o intro- duce camonhold; tha t i t should be available t o both r e s iden t i a l and c m r c i a l purposes: that conversion of exis t ing premises t o cQmDnhold w i l l be optional; and tha t there be provision t o override the objections of a small minority of leaseholders.

I 've gleaned the following additional points f r a n Hansard (Lords and Cormons) f o r 12 July:

(i) Valuation w i l l be by the leasehold valuation t r ibunal .

(ii) The size of the minority which may be overruled is st i l l open f o r discussion (~01.1602).

(iii) No decision has been made about a l t e r i n g the Leasehold Reform A c t 1967 as regards rated over f 1,500.

( i v ) "The rn f a c t that between qualifying leaseholders and the u l t i rmte freeholder there m y be superior leases does not inpede the r igh t s of the qLlalifying leaseholders" ( col. 1603 ) .

(v) There w i l l be model clauses f o r cQmDnhold associations.

( v i ) Pensioners o r people who cannot afford t o buy w i l l not be obliged t o par t ic ipa te i n a purchase of the freehold (~01.1606).

( v i i ) The Lord Chancellor would not say when l eg is la t ion w i l l be intro- duced, but said "there is a good dea l of de ta i led work t o be done" (~01.1606).

CUMx-nID

Letter t o the Chairman, Jams Robinson, £run the V i c e Chainran, Reginald Jones.

(i) The G o v e r - t w i l l not give a right for a lease t o be extended ( ( b t t o n of co1.1238 and co1.1241).

(ii) Where a Landlord m s 1/3 o r rmre of the flats: "we can debate the percentage and kbm pecple should be pmtected but I ( S i r E. Young) recognise the problem" (col. 1240).

(iii) Legislation w i l l be introduced when parlianzntary time can be found (~01.1241).

It f o l l m s that we are really not rmch wiser as t o the extent to which the Gwernmnt have o r have not accepted the views which w e put forward last February. I therefore do not think we can do more than t o write again t o the Ministry t o say that we w e l m the stat-t of 1 2 July; that in particular we w e l m the Gove.rnm=nt's intention t o enable long leaseholders t o acquire the freehold ccnpulsorily, though we have same cam-mts of deta i l on these enfranchisement prcposals ( ie what I've said in my separate l e t t e r to you plus whatever other C a n n i t t e e manbers say): and that, as regards onnmlwld, it is unclear t o w h a t extent the obselvations we made last Febmary have been accepted, and we should be grateful fo r the Ministry's torments thereon.

I ' m copying this t o the Office i n Darbmuth St.

Yours sincerely,

~ O F x U & ~ I D R A T S

letter t o the Chairman, James Robinson, frun the V i c e Chainmn, Reginald Jones.

30 July 1991

Dear James.

I 've chosen the abwve heading t o this letter because I ' m clear that the Govern- ment ( r ight ly , in my view) a n treating the acquisition by residents of f l a t s of the freehold as a separate issue fran ammnhold. Although such an acqui- sition may be the f i r s t step tmards conversion to camonhold, such a conver- sion is not a necessary consequence (and, indeed, m y not be possible, since i t seems that the rules for conversion t o canmnhold are l ikely t o be stricter).

- 0 F I D N G m r n F I A T S

Letter t o the olaianan, James Robinson, from the V i c e Chainmn, Reginald Jones.

Since we both ocarpy f l a t s i n blocks where the freehold is held by capanies fornred by the residents, neither of us have a personal interest in this aspect. Hmwer, I think the Govenunent's proposals are, by and M e , reasonable and well thought out. The Federation can claim sare credit for th i s , because we stressed in our suhnission of 22 February that the legislation ( t o quote your covering l e t t e r ) "ms t include a prwision fo r the enforceable right t o convert existing cwnership of blocks of f l a t s in to m n h o l d " (by which we -t, prinarily, a "right t o buyn ) . I also notice that the D o E leaf le t of July 1991 n w states as reasons for giving the "right t o buy" the reasons the Federation xlvanced, ie ( a ) t o tackle bad mag-t. (b ) t o solve the problems of selling diminishing leases and (c) t o fac i l i t a te later conversion t o comnxlhold.

Sans of our mrs m y wish the conditions fo r enfranchis-t relaxed. I confess to sure doubts on h w fa r we can o r should press this. Hauater, I have annexed a list of what these conditions appear t o be, with my m n t s on them. If other nmbers wish t o press more strongly fo r change, I would not wish t o resist them, although I do not think they w i l l succeed a t the end of the day. We should hwwer s t a r t , in any wr i t ten cxnrnents, that we welcome the prcposals generally, and only wish t o c r i t i c i s e as t o deta i l .

I m writing separately on the "camnonhold" aspects.

I ' m copying this t o the office. Yours sincerely,

Main Points in Dept. of Ehvironment's Leaflet of July 1991, and C a m m t s thereon

(a) 2/3 of .nl;lllfvmrr . . ~~m (ie srperiar m, these are

&lets) nust wte in fmrrur.

Ormaent: It f o l l w s that the scheme doesn't necessarily help actual resi- dents, since, theoretically at leas t , mre than a third m y be sub-tenants.

(b) Ihe -yes- mtes nus t equal at least 2/3 of the mnhx of m i t s w i t h mi- dent &am&dds.

Ormaent: I do not understand the explanation of (b ) given in the leaf le t . If a significant proportion of units is let direct ly by the landlord t o renting tenants, presumably the landlord w i l l have the vote fo r those f l a t s - but i f he favours sale t o the "qualifying leaseholders" - which would presumably include him - what is wrong with that? I accept that

Main Points in Dept. of Emrirorrment's Leaflet of July 1991, and Camnents Thereon

if this meant that the freeholder Landlord would still have a mjori ty of the votes, this could be undesirable, but I ' m not sure whether the restr ict ion is abed a t this o r a t scmething else. -

(c) NOt unxe 10% oh the fhmr area rmst be used for -residential plr-

poses- *

Onrment: This m y be over-restrictive. I believe a lo t of f l a t s are built over shops. Whilst the hrlk of the pmperty should be for residential puxposes, a higher percentage might be more appropriate.

-t: There seems t o be a contradiction here. Under "el igibil i ty" i t is stated that the vote for the unit w i l l rest with the superior lessee - but here, it says that the notice w i l l require a superior leaseholder t o sell. I assme that what is really meant is that if (as is the case with Ashley Cour t ) the freeholder has granted a lease of the wble block t o a single head leaseholder, who has then sub-let t o occupiers of indi- vidual f l a t s on long leases, the notice covers both interests, whereas the reference under "el igibil i ty" is t o the case where the long leaseholder of a single flat has sub-let. Hmever, I suggest this should be clarified. ( I f my intexpretation is correct, I would not quarrel with the proposal).

I support the suggestion that where the property includes a non-residential elemnt and/or non-qualifying f l a t s l e t on short leases, the tenants m y either include them in the offer t o purchase or offer a 150 year leaseback.

This pennits the landlord t o dispute saw o r a l l of the terms.

Comaent: See "Resolution of Dispute" belm.

This passage is rather carplex, but I think i t is acceptable. Hmever, sam of our rmrben m y hm more about valuation than I do.

ksolutim oh D i s p u t e s

Where a dispute is not about price, then the county court is t o resolve it. What is not clear t o me is w h a t guidance is t o be given on the cri teria which the court is t o apply. Som "relevant points" are l is ted, and these are sound enough, but none of them appear t o help i f the dispute i s over what is t o be done in relation t o non-qualifying f la t s . (Ch balance, I would favour preference being given t o the 150 year leaseback option, though the court should retain an u l t k t e discretion).

NEWSLETTER 22 Page 15

3 SAMLEROW LONDON WIX IAF Telephone: 071-437 0655. Fu. 071.734 6416. DXBl55OSAWLEROW W J

D REFORM: ENGLAND AND WALES

. . rpmments of The w l d i n q sorletres AssociatioI7

ement of Lona Leasehold Flats-, ~ P a o e r D e V' e ;u ' 9 9 1

1. In this Paper are met out the comments of The Building Societies Association ("the BSA') on the Department of the Environment's paper "Bnfranchiaement of Long Leaaehold Flats", published in July 1991 following the announcemant by Ministars of the Government's decisions to proceed to implement Commonhold tenure for flat ownership and alao to give £la= laasoholdera, in England and Wales, the right to purchase the freeh?ld collectively. The views expressed in this paper are put forward on behalf of the Council of nortgage Lenders as well as the BSA.

2. The BSA welcomea moat warmly the Government's announcements. It believe# that, when implemented, they will bring much needed relief co many thousands of flat leareholders in England and wales who are currently auffering, in one way or another; under the present long leasehold system. As long ago as 1984, the BSA pointed out the problems in its Report "Leaaeholda - Time for a Change?" and it is pleased to note that the new Commonhold tenure, as originally proposed by the Law Commission working Party in 1987, ia in many way8 rimilar t o the Australian Strata Title lyatem as recommended for adoption in England and wales in the BSA's 1984 Report.

-era1 comments

3. The BSA urges the Government to implement the enfranchiserient and Commonhold proposals aa aoon as possible. Many leaseholders in Ensland and Walem have no immediate, preaminq difficulties - caa.1 for example wheee the blocks may be relatively new, the leases properly and fairly draw-, and the landlords and their managing aqente playing their part in a reasonabie and straightforward way - but, unfortunately, there are far too many other cases where major problems exist and where relief is badly needed.

4 . There proposals are concerned with the homes of a very large ncriber of paople; the Department has referred to approximately one and a half million leasehold flats and, in a11 probability, the number of people directly affected im batwaan two and three million. It is vital, therefore, that the proposals are published in as clear and atraightforward a fashion as porsible. Tha laaflat to which these comments refer was produced extremely quickly following the announcmment. It is however extremely important that detailed information is available to flat owners, which fully describes the propoaale and which deals with the many queries which they are bound to have. The BSA ia prepared to play itm part in this. Accordingly, it is muggemtad that a more detailed publication in produced as soon as possible and that this clearly aeparater those issues which have been decided as

Government policy, on tho one hand, and those aroae where policy still has to be clarified on the other. ror oxample, it must be made abundantly clear that the enfranchisomant and Comonhold propoaals are related but quite aoparate. Thero appears to be much confusion, among members of the public and the media, that the two are inextricably linked and, in fact, part of the same grocers.

5. The Minister for Bouaing referred in his statement in the House of Commons on 12 July to the possibility of an adviaory aervice. The BSA boliovoa that thia would bo extremely useful in presenting an accurate picture t o loaaoholdora and landlord. and in avoiding misconceprions. The BSA ia littlo concerned @t the effects on the market for flats which any uncertaintios might load to. It is possible, for oxample, that the market for aome (or oven poaaibly all) leasehold flats might be blighted, pending implementation of tho necessary legislation; this would be tragic for all those concerned and, in the light of the true nature of the proposais, probably unnecoasary. a 6. It is alao important, for eimilar market reasons, that the Governmen-.

a announcee its decision as soon as possible in certain crucial areas - for oxamplo, the guoetion of whether or not leaseholders excluded from the enfranchisement proposals should be given the right to extend thelr leases. If thia is not done, there is a real danger that excluded leases will form what amounts to a 'aecond-clars", blighted market. It is not inconceivable, also, that aome landlords may be able to arrange matters, in the period leading up to full implementation of the enfranchisement proposals, whereby their premises are excluded from these proposals and where the leaseholders may have no course of action which could prevent this.

7. The section headed "Introduction-, ie, frankly, confusing and mialoading -

(a) The first paragraph refers to "the intended scheme" without at any point making clear what this is; it also refers, at the only point

a in the document, to Land obligations and also to "collective freehold ownership' without giving any details.

(b) Elamwhere, reference is made to "the new enfranchisement prop08als" - i8 thia simply a means by which, provided the appropriate tests aro paaaed, the leaseholders in a block will be able to purchase the landlord's froohold interest using the tried and rested vehicle of a COmpany,,OwnOd by them? If so, this ihould be made clear.

(c) Tho introduction then goes on to refer to Commonhold. Here again - and thm confusion on the part of the public and the media is evidenco of this - it is not made clear what precise relationship Commonhold tonure haa to "leasehold enfranchisement". On the first page of the leaflet, the second paragraph misleads the reader by referring to the proposal "to give long-leaseholders in a block of flats the right to buy the freehold interest in the block" as "part of the [Comonhold] acheme". The two are i n fact quite separate.

8 . The BSA haa tho following qumrlss under thzs heading -

Page 17

(a) The fjrst paragraph is misleading - it does not refer to raaidential flat8 and, what is more, mentions "commerciala, leases. Tha Oovernmant had ruraly made it clear that commercial leases per se wore outaid* the anfranchirement proporala? If this reference is in fact t o the proportion (ie less than lo*)' of a block which would be included, folloiring a vote, in the enfranchisement proposals, then it rhould may ao.

(b) , In the second paragraph of this rection, it ir misleading to rafer there to tha vote reating with the ruperior lessee, whilst at tha rune time, the firrt paragraph of the next aection ("procedure") rays that a ruporior leaseholder can be required t o sell. In certain parts of tha country (eg Lancashire) the custom is to have several tiers of laases and it ir accordingly vital that these aspects are very clear and straightforward to operate.

(c) In the sixth paragraph, reference im made to the scheme coverlng any building which .includes two or more flats". In terms of the

to enfranchise, it is mathematically impossible to obtain a two thirds majority unless both flat owners (in cases of buildings with two flats) vote in favour. In other words, there must be a 100% vote in favour. This rhould be made absolutely clear.

(d) Because a very large number of blocks have less than ten units, it is important that the reference to "special rules" to govern these eases are made known a8 moon as possible.

(a) Referring to the eighth paragraph, and bearing in mind that it is likaly that tha legirlation yill not actually come into effect for at laast a year, provision ought to be made for cases wbere a landlord deliberately takes residence in one of the flats in order to keep his development outside tho enfranchirementprovisions.

(f) Referring to the final paragraph of this section, can it be made clear that a mortqagoe in poeeession (ie because of the lacdlord's "incapacity") will in affact stand in the shoes of its former borrower?

9. A query in this rection refers to the notice to be served on the landlord: do tha two options (to cover non reeidential etc elements) not amount to the s m e tbing - in other words, if the tenants are to give the freeholder a 150-year leareback, then surely they need to buy the freehold to anabla them to do thir?

10. Tha B S h ia taking advice from valuer8 about the proposals in this 8ection and may have further viows t o put to the DOE but, at the moment, it fa not antirely c h a r how the anfranchisement price is to be calculated but the key phrase aeems to come at the end of the sub-section headed "share of marriage value-i apparently, the freeholder is to receive a share of the total of the marriage values of the individual flats, which "takes into account the pramant valuar of the freeholders' and the tenantsg total interestw.

1 If what is being raid is that one works out the "added value" of each flat, than effectively adjuats the total of these to take into account the

NEWSLETTER 22 Page 18

valum of the frmoholdmrla intore~t, that is in principle satisfactory but, surely, the froeholdor 8hould not make a profit because he is selling to him tonants rather than in the open market? Reference is made to the fact that tho share of tho total of the marriage values will be no less than 5 0 0 - how is thia to bo calculated?

12. Tho pamphlet doos not make clear vhar will happen to those loaaoholders who cannot, or do not vish to, participate in the onfranchiaomont. Thmam will not be non remidential or non qualify~ng flats but, quit. aimply, flat8 whoa. owners are against thm proposal. It is vital that thia area i8 clarified.

13. The BSA would 8upport the moves tovarde the abolition of the current limit. on enfranchiamment of leasehold houaee.

14. Bas the Governmont considered, in the context of the current propomals, whothor anything further could bo done to hasten the early abolition of rent charge8 beyond the procedures already contained in the Rent Charges Act 19777

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 R e c e n t Court Cases

Abbreviations: EG = IIstates Gazette; WLR = M y Iar ileparts

D e n e t ~ ~ ~ Ltd v rrocp ad OUEIS 9120 EG 194.

The prenises consisted of two twc-storey tuildings m t a i n i n g eight f l a t s with gardens and separate garages. In Nwerrber 1988, the original landlord sold the pmperty without offering it t o the tenants and thus was in breach of the Act. The tenants served a Section 12 Purchase No t i ce on Denetorer who then applied t o the County Court seeking declarations that the tenants were not enti t led t o p-se on the folloring grcunds:

(i) they were not "qualifying" tenants within the rrreaning of the Act

(ii) the Notice was invalid

(iii) the Notice covered the buildings only and not the gardens o r garages.

The County Court judge held that the tenants w e r e not "qualifying" tenants, but he would have decided the other points i n favour of the tenants. 0-1 appeal t o the Court of Appeal, the tenants succeeded in overturning th i s decision because

(i) it was considered that the landlord's argument would produce an absurd result. It was argued that Section 2 ( a ) ( i i ) excluded any tenant fmn participating in a anpulsory purchase under the A c t whose f l a t included "my comron par ts of the building". Since, of course, all the f l a t s included parts of the structure and exterior of the building which could be said t o be "camncol parts", none of the f l a t s qualified. The Caurt of Appeal hmever held that t o be a f l a t within the Section it would have t o include arm~n parts other than such parts a s its inwitable share in the structure.

(ii) Denetorer's second arg~lmnt that the No t i ce was invalid because i t require3 the transfer t o the tenants of everything i t had acquired. did not succeed. men though the Notice prwided fo r the transfer, this did not matter.

The Ccllrt of Appeal decided, because it w a s saved by the r ider "subject t o such nndificatim as is necessary in the ciromPtancesW.

(iii) Denet- did in part succeed on its third point. The Court of Appeal decided that the premises w h i c h the tenants w e r e en t i t l ed to buy did not include the garages since these were held u r d e di f fe-wt leases f m n the f l a t s . Ckl the other hand, the gardens and mads etc. were appurtenant t o the buildings and the tenants were entitled t o perpetual r ights of en joyrent.

-22 Page 20

The Court of Appeal also decided that although the Rent Asses-t Cannittee was the body appointed under the A c t t o adjudicate on questicns of the terms of purchase ( i e the price and other contractual terms), i t w a s only the Court which had jur isdic t im t o detennine the validity of a Purchase Notice, as in this case.

The cut- was not so satisfactory for the tenants in the case of Gregory v Saddiq 9116 EG 141 where a house containing two f l a t s of which the tenants were statutory tenants was sold, in breach of the Act, f o r £45.000. The tenants contended that because the purchaser had been unaware that the property was subject t o two protected tenancies, they had paid E20,000 m r e than the true market price and therefore the tenants should be required t o pay only £25,000 a the corrpulsory resale. The Rent Assesmt Ccmnittee held that i t did not have p e r t o detennine the tenm of disposal other than t o ascertain the consideration payable under the original disposal. Therefore, the price to be paid by the tenants was (follcwing W i n s v #tru -tee, reported in Newsletter 21) £45.000. They pointed cut that the only exceptions to this approach which would a l l c w investigation into the surrounding circumstances would be where

(i) the original price was not for m e y but, for exanple, was by way of exchange or

(ii) there was same question as to whether the transaction was a genuine --length sa le o r

(iii) the A c t expressly allcws mdi f ica t im of the original price ( i e where i t includes additional property, o r subsequent incumbrances mce its value o r there has been m increase or decrease in value due t o extraneous events) o r a

( i v ) there has been a rnisdescription of the property in the original con- t rac t of sale o r

(v ) the price is a t t o t a l variance with the cpen m k e t value and paid under a misapprehension.

In Stme5 v Ieeds City Cbmcil 1991, 23 Housing law Reports, the Court of Appeal held that saturated internal plaster, caused by candensation being pt3I-t of the stlucture of the building was the responsibility of the landlord. the patches of saturation w e r e not minimal and upheld the award of £5.000 dumges for disrepair.

Long-leaseholders and tenants should be aware of the provisions of the Defective Premises Act 1972. Briefly, this provides by Section 1 that anyone carrying cut work cm a dwelling whether by way of erect im, conversion or enhrg-t w e s a duty of care not m l y t o the enployer but to anyone who aC4Uires an interest in the building. The nature of the duty is to carry out

the work in proper n-anner and t o ensure that the dwelling is f i t for hmm habitatim. Liability amtinues fo r six years f m n the date of anplet ion of the work. Section 3 of the A c t nrakes it clear that the armpn law duty for drmage crmsed by faulty repairs, dermlition or maintenance of a building by its owner is not affected because the building changes h d s . Under Section 4, the landlord is l iable fo r all defects in the premises w h i c h he knew or arght t o have born Bbout and which cause da-mge not m l y to tenants, but t o visi tors, or even passers-by; this duty extends t o cover not only badly dme work but anissim t o carry out work.

a The tenant in Trwartem v nDClrllocfr 911 EG 118 withheld rent m t i n g t o U,274 because the landlord had failed t o carry out repairs i n breach of Section 11 of the Housing Act 1985. The landlord took proceedings for non- payrrent of rent and the tenant counterclaimed £2,700 fo r darnages for the fai lure t o repair. The County Court judge agreed and awarded her £1.700 for fai lure t o carry out extensive repairs i n respect of which the m v i n c m n t a l Health Officer of the Local Autbr i ty had served an enforcanent notice under the Housing Act 1957 and which included structural al terat ions and reposition- ing of the water tanks. A futher £1,000 was awarded by way of anpensation for cleaning costs, loss of food in a freezer and general d is t ress and distur- bance wer the 10 week period which the works took t o ccnplete. Hmwer, although this meant that the tenant was wed E426 by the landlord a f t e r deducticn of the rent arrears, the judge ordered possession for nm-paymnt of rent. It was held on the tenant's appeal that the judge was wrong because

(i) the works w e r e outstanding before the arrears of rent aCCIUed and the tenant had an equitable set-off against the damges and

(ii) i t was not reasonable under Section 98 (1) of the Rent Act 1977 t o

'C make a possession order.

Andrers ad Sdnoling v 0- 1991 WLR was a case decided under Section 1 of the Act w h x e the leasetalder bouqht a f l a t in a newly converted building. With the f l a t she also bcught a cell& which w a s badly affected by dmp. Although the landlord had m l y redecorated the ce l la r , it was held that Sectiw 1 applied t o acts of anissicn as w e l l a s c d s s i o n and he should have carried out remedial work t o prevent the darrp. The leaseholder was awarded £7.500 interim da-mges pending trial of the action.

bases and tenancy agremmts cammly cmtain a prwision a l lwing the land- lord t o enter t o carry out repairs. Hcwwer, in Wpsan v Pbrds 9018 EG 99, the landlord demanded that the tenants vacate the f l a t ent i re ly whilst repairs %ere carried a t . The tenants refused, fearing that they might not be al lmed badc into possession and, even i f they were, the landlord w m l d increase the rent, having carried out the repairs which wcruld "inprove" the premises and the tenants build not be able t o afford t o pay. The landlord took possession proceedings saying the tenants were in breach of the tenancy agreement having refused access, but was unsuccessful because the Court held that the tenants had not refused access in refusing t o m e a t altogether.

Under the Hwsing A c t 1988 Section 27, damges can be warded t o a tenant which r e f l e c t the f inanc ia l benefi t to the landlord i n gaining possession rather than as p r w i w s l y under the hotecticn fram Eviction A c t 1977, a sum whi& is suf f ic ien t m r e l y t o ccnpensate the tenant f o r distuxbance etc. An exmple of the sor t of sums involved can be seen fron the case of Tagro v Mme (see EG 9115) where the evicted tenant received £15.000 fo r damge to his possessions p lus E31.000 to r e f l e c t the difference in value of the p r q x r t y with and w i t b u t vacant possession. This was so, wen though the landlord w a s h i m e l f only a m t h l y tenant of the building but i t was ass- that his in t e res t was assignable and therefore had mre than the value of a s inple m t h l y tenancy. It was a l so decided that the tenant w a s not obliged t o accept an o f f e r of r e i n s t a t m t in l i e u of d m g e s .

The tenants in Steele v 9044 EG 66 w e r e granted a protected resi- d e n t i a l tenancy in return f o r carrying out works costing £72.000. Five years later, they assigned the tenancy in return f o r a premium of £115.000. Cm an action by the new tenants t o recover this sum on the grounds tha t i t was an i l l e g a l premium prohibited by the Rent A c t 1977, it w a s conceded that £42,000 should be repaid but the Court allaved the retentian of the balance a s being rehhrs-t f o r the cost of the works and thus f a l l i n g within the exception covered by Section 120 (3b) of the A c t . The argwlent tha t t h i s should apply only t o works carried out after the original grant of the tenancy was un- successful.

In -tkath v W.rza 9042 EG 137, the tenant failed t o obtain Rent Act protection thmugh a stroke of bad luck. &ing t o a surveyor's error , the incorrect rateable value of the premises was entered in the rat ing list (£680 in April 1963 and £1.763 i n April 1973) thus excluding the tenancy frun pro- tect ion under the A c t . When the mistake w a s discovered, they were altered by ag-t t o £576 and £1,347 respectively, taking e f fec t on 1st April 1973 but the Court was bound t o hold tha t this did not bring the tenancy within protection because Section 25 (4 ) of the Rent A c t 1977 requires any al terat ion t o take e f fec t "not later than the apprcgriate day" which would i n t h i s case be 23rd March 1965.

v Hards 9115 EG 107 was a decision on s tatutory succession t o a protected tenancy: the tenant 's grandson m e d i n t o her f l a t with the intention of staying permanently. Shortly a f t e r , the tenant broke her arm and went t o s t a y with her daughter t o recover fran the injury. She returned hum a f t e r fax m t h s but died four m t h s later. The Court of Appeal held that the grandscm was e n t i t l e d t o succeed t o the tenancy because, in s p i t e of the four nmth gap, he was

(i) a e r o f the tenant 's f an i ly

(ii) residing with her at the tim of her death and

(iii) s o residing f o r six m n t h s imnediately p r io r t o her death, thus qualifying him under the Rent A c t 1977.

Fbr tenancies granted a f t e r 1st April 1990, protection under the Rent Act 1977 and Housing A c t 1988 w i l l be conferred only i f the annual rent (excluding Service Charges) is less than U5,000 p.a. (References t o Rating Regulatims 1990 SI No. 434, as amnded by SI No. 701 and SI No. 516). Fbr tenancies granted before 1st April 1990, the previcus Rateable Values are still enployed t o establish whether there is prutectim.

(karorm Prrperties v Seodcley H a l l Ilesidents W F i t Ltd 8914 EG 78 The landlord wanted t o build ten new parking bays in the forecourt of the block. The leaseholders objected m the grwmds that this would cause sub- s tant ia l inconvenience but wen so it was held that because the lease provided that the landlord could a l t e r the camrsl parts "notwithstanding that access or any other easement granted t o the tenants might be obstructed or interfered with", the d w e l q n m t could pmceed.

Another case turning on the interpretation of a lease went against the lease- holders in Taylorv -ike Ltd 9044 EG 75. A owenant in the lease contained an absolute prohibition against any a l t e r a t ims o r addit ims t o the f l a t . Even though this prevented alterations which anxlnted t o inpmvments o r mdemisations, the judge held that there was no justification fo r interfering with the clear straightforward wording of the covenant.

Such covenants are usually subject t o the proviso that landord's consent m s t be obtained but such amsent m s t not be unreasonably withheld. In nidlrmd Bmk v Umrt W t e q r i s e s 9044 EG 68 there was just such a covenant against

t assignmnt of the lease. 15th February 1989, a request was mde by l e t t e r for landlords' consent to assignmnt which was granted on 5th May but subject t o conditions which w e r e unacceptable; this mused further delay in negotiating and then the landlords delayed yet again while inquiring as t o the nature of the existing sub-tenants (althcugh they could have found this out mch ear l ier and mre easily had they wished). In August 1989, the tenants f inal ly lost patience and took proce&ings alleging that the landlords had delayed unreasonably i n granting consent in contravention of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988. The landlords' argumnt that the new proposed tenants were not suitable was disnissed because thei r objection was not raised u n t i l November 1989 and i t was ordered by the Court that the assignment could proceed without landlords' consent i f necessary.

In -them Depot (30. Ltd v W 9033 EG 45 the tenants were also successful. but in this case i n obtaining re l ief against forfei ture of the lease fo r a serious and wilful breach by the tenant. This was because the Court considered that the financial windfall t o the landlord had forfei ture been granted was out of proportion t o the damge caused by the breach.

In Jdlybird v R ' Ltd 9043 EG 63, the lease provided that the lease- biders were obliged to antribute t o the mst of central heating and t o pay an increase if the cost of fuel inueased. The Caut of A p e d l held that the landlord was not enti t led t o charge anything aver and above the actual cost of providing the fue l and tkxefore was not entitled t o make any profit fran its prwis icn (the lease already antdined an q r e s s provisicn al lwing a 10% administraticn charge).

&l Govemmnt Hcusing Act 1989 S186c Sch 10 Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, a f t e r the expiraticn of a long lease, the leaseholder m t i n u e s t o enjoy seolrity of tenure. This provision is con- tinued f o r tenancies granted a f t e r 15.1.89, but the nature of the security w i l l be that of an assured tenant as cpposed t o a Rent Act tenant. (In force

a as f n m 1.4.90): where such a tenancy is in existence, all l iab i l i ty under the p r e v i a s lease being extinguished.

H-er, the decision in Blathnkk ( S e w - ) Ltd v King 91 2WL.R 848 d-strated that this exmeration is only limited i n its effect i n that the tenant had t o amtribute £9,903.55 tarards the cost of repairing the ccmron parts , the ream being that such costs f e l l within the exoeptim t o the rule ccntained in Secticn 10 (1) of the Iandlord and Tenant Act 1954, n e l y being related t o prcperty other than the dwelling house.

Sewia? charges in Ieases: A practical guide by Gerald Sher i f f , Waterlm, 1989. Pp 128, £9.95

This authori ta t ive study covers service charges in three categories of lease- hold property - m r c i a l , i ndus t r i a l and res ident ia l . Gerald Sheriff , a pract is ing so l i c i to r , provides mch usefu l infomation on the l ega l and prac t ica l aspects of the subject. Service charge provisions, he w r i t e s "can be the most s ignif icant par t of the lease.. ." The author is m i n l y concerned

.J

with problems ar i s ing from exis t ing leases, but advice is a l s o given t o the

a negotiators of new leases on the many fac tors affect ing service charges. -

Topics covered in the m i n text include service charge obl igat ions on the par t of the landlord and tenant, the items nomal ly l i a b l e t o a se rv ice charge, recovery methods, dispute procedures and s ta tu tory controls. The appendices give f i v e exmples of service charge provisions introduced by the author 's notes and linked t o arrments in the main text, a copy of the s ta tu tory provisions in the Iandlord and Tenant Acts of 1985 and 1987, a note on the Law of Repair and an explanatory menorandm on the Taxation of Service Charges. The book i s f u l l y doclanented and produced t o a high standard. An excellent index and Table of Contents f a c i l i t a t e s its use as an inportant reference work. N.C.

Note: The Federation has accepted Waterlau's o f f e r t o supply the o f f i c e with ccpies at a 15% dismunt f o r resa le t o W r s . The o f f e r remains open u n t i l 31 December 1991.

mt Partfolio, Westminster C i t y Council, June 1991. £29.95

This excellent publication provides a sinple but conprehensive guide t o the mrplex procedurrs involved i n the Right of F i r s t Refusal. Residents' Associations and other groups of tenants considering buying out t h e i r land- lord ' s i n t e re s t i n accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 w i l l f ind t h i s a t t r ac t ive ly prcduced po r t fo l io invaluable. The po ten t i a l saving of lawyen' fees in the initial stages lmre than j u s t i f i e s the wst.

The guide is obtainable from Che Stop Services, Ci ty Hall , Victoria S t ree t , SW1, o r the Council's Housing Advice Centres a t 64 Westbourne Grove, W2, and 55 Riding House S t ree t , W 1 . Orders by post should be sent t o the Housing Advice Centre, 55 Riding House S t ree t , London W1P 7PS with a cheque o r pos t a l order f o r f32.05 per ccpy, payable t o the C i t y of Westminster. N.C.

Fxtra copies of t h i s N e w s l e t t e r can be obtained from the o f f i c e a t £2.50 each. postage paid.

Contributions are welam&. Texts should not exceed 500 words. Relevant newspaper cut t ings are a l s o useful but please send whole pages.