Where a court makes a child arrangements order, pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), for a child to live with a person who is not the parent or guardian of a child, that person shall have parental responsibility for the child while the order remains in force so far as providing for the child to live with that person (ChA 1989, s 12(2)). The person will retain parental responsibility for so long as the order for the child to live with them remains in place. In the scenario of this Q&A, the

The answer to this Q&A will depend on whether the components of the kitchen and bathroom are fixtures or fittings, and, if they are the former, whether they are landlord’s or tenant’s fixtures or have become part of the demise. Fixtures or fittings? Whether a chattel has been so affixed to the land or buildings as to become a fixture depends on the circumstances of each case, but mainly on two factors: the degree of annexation and the object and purpose of the annexation. If the chattel can be removed without doing irreparable damage to the premises, neither the method nor the degree of annexation, nor the quantum of damage that would be done to the chattel or to the premises by its removal, affects

The Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) imposes a requirement upon landlords to deal with deposits taken in respect of assured shorthold tenancies in accordance with schemes authorised under it (HA 2004, s 213(1)). There are two schemes: the custodial scheme and the insurance scheme (HA 2004, s 212(8) and HA 2004, Sch 10, paras 1(2), 4). In the case of the former, the deposit is paid into an account held by a scheme administrator, while in the latter, the landlord retains it but gives an undertaking to the administrator to return, who in turn maintains a policy of insurance in the event that the landlord fails to do so. This Q&A does not consider the penalties for failing to comply with those requirements (HA 2004, s 214) or the prohibition upon the landlord serving a section 21 notice (section 21 of the Housing Act 1988) for

The Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) regulates how landlords must deal with tenants’ deposits for assured shorthold tenancy (ASTs). The relevant provisions came into force on 6 April 2007. HA 2004, s 213 requires a landlord who has received a tenancy deposit to register it with an authorised scheme and provide information relating to it within 30 days of receiving the deposit (prior to amendment by section 184 of the Localism Act 2011, this was within 14 days). If a landlord fails to take these steps, HA 2004, s 214 allows a tenant to apply to Court for an order that the deposit may be protected or returned and that the landlord pays to the tenant a sum of money not less than the amount of the deposit and

The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 effectively disapplies the rule against perpetuities from future easements granted on or after 6 April 2010, so a draftsman now need not be concerned to specify a perpetuity period. Any restrictions on the exercise of the easement specified in the document itself, will, of course, still apply. However, the rule still applies to easements granted before 6 April 2010. Perpetuities are not an issue if the subject matter of the easement already exists at the date of grant. For example, the rule has no application to an easement to use existing service media. However, where an easement is granted to use service media which may be

The covenant is said to be that only a single-family unit may occupy the property. For the purpose of this Q&A it is assumed that the property is a residential assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord is likely to be a private landlord who is keen to ensure that the property is not over-occupied, or to prevent parts of the property being let to lodgers. What constitutes ‘a single-family unit'? There is no statutory definition of a ‘single-family unit’ which would be applicable in these circumstances. The law would import the interpretation afforded by the ‘man on the

The following assumptions have been made for the purposes of this Q&A, that: • it was anticipated by all parties at the time a lease was granted that a tenant would have exclusive occupation of the premises without any restrictions as to the amount of time a tenant could spend in occupation of the premises on an annual basis or otherwise • the lease contains a standard provision whereby the tenant covenants to comply with regulations made by the landlord from time to time • following the grant of the lease, the landlord created a regulation preventing a tenant from occupying the premises for more than a certain amount of time in

In this Q&A there are no section 20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) issues as notices have previously been served. The Q&A considers whether or not a term in a residential lease permitting a landlord to increase a tenant’s service charge contribution can be applied retrospectively. Whilst a lease may define the percentage service charge that a tenant is liable to pay, statute limits the amount that may be recovered from tenants of dwellings by way of service charge. The landlord may recover no more than is ‘reasonable’ notwithstanding any contrary provision

There is no requirement that the donees to a gift need to execute the deed of gift. As a result, prima facie the gift will be effective and will vest the beneficial interest in the lease in the four donees despite it being executed or signed by the donors and only two of the donees. The legal interest in the lease is a different issue. The transfer of a 999 year lease or any lease in excess of seven years is required to be registered

A mortgagee in possession has a number of potentially onerous liabilities. One of these is the obligation, where the mortgaged property is a ‘new’ lease for the purpose of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants)

The general starting point is that a landlord cannot recover the cost of items which are not clearly included in the lease and which are of no benefit to the tenants. As a matter of law, the costs of legal proceedings are only recoverable via the service charge if the wording of the lease allows it. It will therefore depend upon the interpretation of the relevant lease as to whether the cost of legal advice as to a potential breach of covenant by a tenant is included. In addition, statute limits the amount that may be recovered

Owners are not obliged to appoint the same surveyor if a new notice under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) is served. The original notice (whether served under PWA 1996,