If the tenancy is excluded from the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, then there is nothing preventing the tenancy agreement

We have limited our answer to this Q&A to cover the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 as well as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). Article 3(4) of Directive 2011/83/EU (OJ L 304/64), the EU Consumer Rights Directive (EU CRD) introduced a de minimis threshold of up to €50 for the pre-contractual information (and cancellation) requirements for off-premises sales. Article 7(4) introduced a de minimis threshold of up to €200 for all the pre-contractual information requirements for off-premises sales in the case of essential repairs and maintenance. Note that the criterion considered below for off-premises contracts does not overrule this de minimis threshold. See Practice Note: The EU Consumer Rights Directive for more information. Business premises One consideration is whether the convention could constitute a premises. The EU CRD provides at recital (21) that off-premises includes: ‘a place which is not the business premises of the trader’. Article 2(9) of the EU CRD states: ‘business premises’ means: (a)

A buyer of a residential property who permits the sellers to remain in occupation post-completion may cause themselves significant difficulties. Most mortgage lenders will not permit such occupation, and conveyancers will strongly advise against such an agreement in any event. If the sellers remain in occupation of the property, there is a risk that they could contend that they had been granted an oral tenancy, as opposed to a licence. This would mean that there would be a need to serve a notice under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988),

Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) arises on chargeable transactions and is calculated by reference to the rates set out in section 55 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003). For the difference between residential and non-residential property, see Practice Note: SDLT—residential property vs non-residential property, where it is noted that the question as to whether a property

Where a tenanted property is sold in the middle of a rental period, it is usual for an adjustment to be made between the buyer and seller to reflect the fact that some of the rent relates to the period when the property was owned by the seller, and some to the period when the buyer has become the new owner. The adjustment may be made through the completion monies when the transaction is completed. This applies whether the rent is paid in advance or in arrears. The strict value added tax (VAT) treatment of these adjustments would be complicated and so HMRC (or its predecessor

Not necessarily. Transactions are ‘linked’ if ‘they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same vendor and purchaser or, in either case, persons connected with them’. It is understood that: • a single scheme exists where the transactions form part of some pre-agreed plan or larger transaction • there is a series of transactions where the transactions are entered into sequentially and there is some degree of integral connection or interdependence, and • an arrangement exists when parties reach a common understanding to save the purchaser stamp duty land tax (SDLT) and act in a coordinated way to implement it Applying this to the facts, part of the test would be met—the transactions would be between the same persons. However, the other part of the test would not. The closest of the three descriptors to the facts is the second. The transactions form

The starting point should be to review the terms of the contract. This Q&A assumes that the buyer has exercised a contractual right to rescind (for example where the seller has failed to comply with a notice to complete). The contract may

Transfer of title Section 17 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979) provides that where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. The general rule under SGA 1979, s 21 is that where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and without the owner’s consent, the buyer acquires no better title than the seller, unless the owner is precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell, as detailed below. A non-owner of goods may be able to transfer good title under: • the doctrine of estoppel • a sale by an agent within usual authority • a sale by a mercantile agent, ie where the agent is in possession of the goods with the consent of the owner and it

The standard conditions of sale in respect of both residential and commercial properties provide that, notwithstanding the setting of a completion date (whether by agreement between the parties or the default 20 working days from exchange contained in the standard conditions), time is not of the essence, meaning that a failure to complete on the relevant day does not amount to a breach of contract. The mechanism by which time can be made of the essence is the service of a notice to complete by either the buyer or the seller. A failure to comply with a notice to complete can lead to the affirmation of the contract and a claim for specific performance or acceptance of

Under amendments to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2936 set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 (Regulated Activities Amendment Regulations, 2021), SI 2021/891, from 11 November 2021 a care home provider (or its ‘registered person’) will be required to ensure that a person does not enter the premises unless (with certain exemptions) they provide evidence that satisfies the registered person that they: • have completed a course of authorised coronavirus vaccination, or • should not be vaccinated for clinical reasons (ie have a medical exemption) The question of whether, and when, a care home employee who cannot provide

What are a local authorities obligations in arranging placement? A local authority has an obligation to assess the needs of an eligible person under Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) and provide a placement to meet those needs. There are not always obligations for the local authority to fund that placement. An assessment should be carried out to assess whether the person is able to meet the cost of their own placement needs which takes into account the amount of capital the person has available—see Practice Notes: Assessment for residential accommodation, Eligibility for residential accommodation and Care homes—placement options and fees. A local authority must regularly reassess a person’s ability to meet the cost of any charges to take account of any changes to their resources. This is likely to be on an annual

CPR 26.6 states that the fast track is the ‘normal’ track for claims valued between £10,000 and £25,000. However, while the value of a claim is one of the factors to be taken into account when a court allocates a claim (whether it be to the small claims track, fast track or multi-track), it is not the only factor. The court will have regard to all the factors listed at CPR 26.8(1) when deciding whether to allocate a case to the ‘normal’ track. The fact that the court should consider those factors before determining the appropriate track means that it should