Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Letting People Stay In Their Home


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 porca misèria

porca misèria

    Porcine Aviation Enterprises

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,853 posts
  • About Me:pig

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:26 PM

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 by porca misèria, 20 February 2012 - 08:32 PM.


#2 Garf

Garf

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:54 PM

This week, Mr. Potter shall be mostly wearing nipple clamps.

#3 phead

phead

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:13 AM

Full legal analysis here:

http://nearlylegal.c...s-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.

#4 SarahBell

SarahBell

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,425 posts
  • Location:Mars.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:55 AM

"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?
Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

#5 acer

acer

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:46 AM

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.


"We'll never have a proper democracy 'til we start shooting a few people.." A Garnett

#6 SarahBell

SarahBell

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,425 posts
  • Location:Mars.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:14 AM

Business leases can be 'repairing' ones ...
Residential wouldn't be.

Assume the building has AOC on it.
Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

#7 porca misèria

porca misèria

    Porcine Aviation Enterprises

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,853 posts
  • About Me:pig

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:50 AM

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.

#8 RufflesTheGuineaPig

RufflesTheGuineaPig

    is fluffy

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,035 posts
  • Location:Cricklade, UK
  • About Me:I am Ruffles, the destroyer of worlds....

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:14 AM

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?
It's time to pay the piper. There is no magician who will magic away the debt. Someone is going to have to pay it. Bend over and prepare to make payment.

In this glorious nation of ours, if you work hard and keep your head down for 25 years then you too can aspire to own one-eighth of a one bedroom flat in Manchester.


My mum and day always tell me how important it is to save to buy a house. They should know, it took them nearly 6 months to save for theirs. As teenagers, they bought a 3 bed semi.

#9 tomandlu

tomandlu

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,053 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:23 AM

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.
Buy my book "All the Way Home"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users