porca misèria Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Wonder what the do-gooders who would pay every spendthrift's and idler's mortgage indefinitely have to say about this story? Looks like an obstreperous old fool and a buyer bending over backwards to accommodate him (unless the story is heavily spun), but it demolishes the "keep him there at all costs" argument. Edited February 20, 2012 by porca misèria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garf Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This week, Mr. Potter shall be mostly wearing nipple clamps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phead Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Full legal analysis here: http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/12/howe-gratuitous-is-your-licence/ Nearly Legal is all analysis of legal cases related to housing. It makes good reading, but I can only manage about 4 posts before my brain turns to mush from re-reading the same part 20 times trying to understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 "I also said that if he wanted to retire I would pay him £150,000 to leave. But he turned it all down." Maybe he was stitched up in the will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acer Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Maybe he was stitched up in the will? Looks like the tenant unknowingly stitched himself up years ago. From the nearlylegal link: Again Brian [the tenant] was trapped with the statements in his own evidence and his defence which stated that Mrs How [the previous owner] did not want to hold Brian liable for anything and that he was to have no obligations. The first instance court had clearly found, on evidence, that Brian was concerned to ensure that nobody else would benefit from work he did on the property and so he was not prepared to entertain any form of agreement which imposed a repairing obligation on him that might benefit another. The comment at the end of the nearlylegal piece is interesting: To some extent this case is one which turns on its facts. However, I am wondering if there is a deeper trend here. I have noticed a few times recently a willingness by the Courts to entertain the real possibility that a residential occupier for money’s worth with what appears to be exclusive possession is not a tenant. This is a thorny topic but one that I was always taught would be decided in the tenant’s favour. Now I find myself less certain of that. Doubtless many people will tell me that my suggestion of a new trajectory towards questioning tenancies is nonsense and there are as many decisions the other way. However, it seems to me that the Courts are becoming more nuanced about this issue and there is increasing scope for landlords to argue that they did not in fact grant a tenancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Business leases can be 'repairing' ones ... Residential wouldn't be. Assume the building has AOC on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Business leases can be 'repairing' ones ... Residential wouldn't be. Assume the building has AOC on it. It's a farm. Business and residential all-in-one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 His brother sold the farm, plain and simple. The fact that he got a deal to stay on as a tennant is irrelivant. The question would be how come his brother inherited the entire farm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Looks like the tenant unknowingly stitched himself up years ago. From the nearlylegal link: Indeed. And not really 'unknowingly' - the implications of that clause are fairly unambiguous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.