Under section 15A of the Commons Act 2006 (CoA 2006), landowners have the ability to deposit landowner statements with the Commons Registration Authority. The deposit of a landowner statement brings to an end any period of the land being used by the local residents ‘as of right’ for recreational use. This means, although the use of the land for recreational purposes may continue, the twenty years’ continuous use needed to acquire a legal right to use the land for recreational

If you own land or property next to a river, stream or ditch you are a riparian landowner. Riparian owners have certain rights and responsibilities. In the case of ditches, streams and rivers, it is the landowners on each side of the watercourse who are responsible for the maintenance of the watercourse itself and the flow within it. It should also be noted that it is not just those

The Environment Agency, in their guidance Living on the Edge, explains the situation as follows (emphasis added): 'If your land boundary is next to a watercourse it is assumed you own the land up to the centre of the watercourse, unless it is owned by someone else. If a watercourse runs alongside your garden wall or hedge you should check your property deeds to see if the wall or hedge marks your

A local authority has various powers relating to the highway, the majority of which are contained in the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980). These powers extend to interventions where land adjoining a street (defined as a result of HiA 1980, s 329 by virtue of section 48 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 as any highway, road, lane, footway, alley or passage, any square or court, and any land laid out as a way, whether or not it is formed as a way, a bridge or a tunnel) poses a danger or annoyance, pursuant to HiA 1980, s 167. HiA 1980, s 167(9) provides that 'retaining wall' means a wall, not forming part of a permanent building, which serves, or is intended to serve, as a support for earth or other material on one side only. HiA

Section 7(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) states that an executor of a sole or last surviving executor of a testator is the executor of that testator. This is known as the chain of representation. AEA 1925, s 7(1) goes on to specify that the chain of representation shall not apply to an executor who does not prove the will of his testator, and, in the case

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that there is just one original attorney and one replacement attorney appointed under the lasting power of attorney (LPA). Under section 13(6)(a)–(d) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a donor can appoint a replacement attorney to act when an original attorney can no longer act due to one of the following trigger events: • attorney’s disclaimer of their appointment • attorney’s death • attorney's bankruptcy (this only applies to financial LPAs and not

See Practice Note: Jointly owned property and loss of capacity Q&As and, in particular, section ‘Cases where the incapacitated trustee has appointed an attorney(s) under an enduring or lasting Powers of Attorney’, which provides guidance on the circumstances when an attorney/the daughter may exercise trustee functions in

Key legal issues for guarantees Guarantees are contracts and must therefore satisfy the four basic requirements for a contract: • offer • acceptance • consideration, and • the intention to create legal relations The general principle is that past consideration will not usually be enough. A firm should avoid entering into a guarantee after it has agreed to provide the services to a client. The guarantee must also comply with section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677). It must therefore be in writing and be signed by the guarantor. The Firm will also need to bear in mind the risk of allegations of misrepresentation, duress and undue influence. It is also good practice to ensure the guarantor is given independent legal advice on the effect of entering into the guarantee. Is the guarantee a regulated credit agreement? If

We are not aware of any specific regulatory requirement mandating the retention of physical copies of matter files if a digital copy is available. Indeed, some firms operate on a paperless basis generally, holding hard copy original documents/deeds only. However, it is generally good practice

It is important to distinguish between requirements in the SRA Standards and Regulations and your obligations under data protection law. SRA Standards and Regulations Fundamentally you must act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession, with integrity and in the best interests of each client. You are required to make clients aware of all information material to their matter of which you have knowledge, unless one of four exceptions applies. See Practice Note: Duties of confidentiality and disclosure. If the exceptions do not apply, and the data subject access request (DSAR) is material to the matter, the Codes of Conduct require you to disclose its existence to the client. Where the SRA regulatory

This Q&A assumes that: • the freeholder is the direct landlord, there is no intermediate landlord between the freeholder and the leaseholder • the covenant in the lease is a prohibition from the property being used for the purposes of a holiday let without the landlord’s consent, such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld • the prohibition is not against underletting but the use of the premises as a holiday let • the property is a residential property and use as holiday let would be a change of use The principles applicable to the question of whether consent has been unreasonably withheld to the assignment of a lease are largely the same principles which determine whether consent to a change of use has been unreasonably withheld (Tollbench Ltd v Plymouth City Council). The House of Lords set out three overriding

Section 19(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 provides that any covenant against alteration of use without the landlord’s consent, is, if the alteration does not involve any structural alteration of the premises, deemed to be subject to the proviso that no fine, or similar sum, is to be payable for the consent. However, the landlord may require a payment to compensate him for damage to the value of the property or his neighbouring property and to cover his legal or other expenses incurred in connection with the consent. Although the majority of cases in which the test of reasonableness has been considered by the courts concern covenants against assigning or underletting without consent