This question raises the type of lease which a tenant must hold to qualify for rights under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993). In some respects, it has a degree of circularity because if the tenant does not hold a lease which meets the requirements of the Act, there can be no question of being a 'qualifying tenant' as defined by the relevant legislation. It is assumed that the focus is tenant seeking to exercise rights in respect of a flat under LRHUDA 1993 rather than a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967). Although the definitions of the leases which attract the rights under the respective Acts are very similar for the purposes of this question, the LRA 1967 does not refer to a 'qualifying tenant', but rather a 'tenant who has the rights under that

By way of general background, a receiver is an individual appointed by a creditor with the benefit of a charge over an asset. The appointment allows the receiver to manage the same including income generated by the asset in question. In this instance, the receiver has been appointed by a lender, who seems likely to be a mortgagee. If there are no relevant contractual terms in the mortgage conditions, the mortgagee is entitled to take possession ‘before the ink was dry on the mortgage (Four Maids v Dudley Marshall). Of course, many modern mortgage documents provide that possession cannot take place until certain pre-conditions have been met. If

A child protection conference is a meeting convened by the local authority to make decisions about a child’s safety, health and development. Attendees are usually the conference chair, social workers, parents and any other core family members or group of practitioners involved with the relevant child. Such a meeting may be convened following an enquiry pursuant to section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) to assess whether, and what type of, action is required to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child. See Practice Note: Child protection conferences. It is important to note that the threshold for a ChA 1989, s 47 enquiry is relatively low. It is simply that the local authority has ‘reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm’. If the

The general principle is that inheritance tax (IHT) due in respect of a deceased’s estate is calculated on the value of the estate as of the date of death. The value of assets and liabilities should be obtained in the foreign currency as at the date of death, as well as the pound sterling conversion of that value at that date. HMRC advises in the notes to Form IHT417 that major

No. The 'additional SDLT' (or 'surcharge' or 'residential higher rates' or higher 3% rates) is only repayable where there is a disposal of a dwelling other than the purchased dwelling. A disposal of the purchased dwelling would never qualify even

Where a tenant has claimed the right to buy (under Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985)), and has established that right, then the landlord must in response serve a notice (a ‘section 125 notice’) which sets out among other matters the landlord’s proposed purchase price for the tenant. The price will be the landlord’s valuation of the dwelling-house less the discount to which the purchaser is entitled. For further reading on valuation, see: Valuation: Social Housing Law in Practice [11.4]. See also Practice Notes: Right to buy and Right to acquire [Archived]. Once the section 125 notice is served, the tenant then has 12 weeks to either accept the offer and proceed, or to withdraw. If the tenant disagrees with the proposed price then this can be referred to the district valuer for an independent valuation,

Statutory child support is dealt with under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), which provides at CSA 1991, s 1(1) that for the purposes of CSA 1991, each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining that child. In addition, CSA 1991, s 4(1) provides that: ‘A person who is, in relation to any qualifying child or any qualifying children, either the person with care or the non-resident parent may apply to the Secretary of State for a maintenance calculation to be made under this Act with respect to that child, or any of those children.’ ie both the potential payee and the potential payer may make an application for a maintenance calculation, and a potential payee is not limited to a parent but more broadly to a ‘person with care’. A child

It is the duty of the purchaser of UK land interests to notify HMRC about every notifiable transaction within 30 days after the effective date of the land transaction in question. The purchaser must notify HMRC of notifiable transactions using a land transaction return (LTR). An LTR is a self-assessment of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for every notifiable land transaction. An LTR must be in the prescribed

In partnership with Alexander Learmonth of New Square Chambers This is an answer on the general law, and does not consider tax consequences. Beneficial interests under trusts, including remainder interests, are in general assignable under English law, either for consideration or purely voluntarily. Restrictions on alienation in the trust deed are, in general, void, though a protective trust (section 33 of the Trustee Act 1925) may in effect render an interest unassignable. It is advisable, but not essential, to notify the trustee. A

It is assumed for the purpose of this question that the respondent in the proceedings has not made an application for a lump sum, property adjustment order or pension sharing that was ‘issued prior’ to their remarriage, for example if included within their answer, or by way of an application in Form A. Either party in divorce proceedings, who has remarried, is precluded from applying for a financial provision order or a property adjustment order (section 28(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)). In view of this fact, a formal dismissal of the respondent’s claims referred to in the question is unnecessary, except in one instance, on

The underlying question in this Q&A is—who is the proper defendant to the claim? The claim would appear to be one in unjust enrichment, with the unjust factor being a mistake. Given that the payment was made to the company, it is the company who was enriched, and against whom the claim lies. The fact that the director may have extracted the money from the company is unlikely to be sufficient to ground an unjust enrichment claim against the director. Ordinarily, directors (or shareholders, in the case of Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1 (not reported by LexisNexis®)) will not be liable

The general principle is that where the exercise of a break option is subject to conditions, the conditions must be strictly complied with or observed. See also Conditions precedent to the tenant's exercise of the option: Ross: Commercial Leases [61]. Further, the lease should be checked to see if rent is payable ‘without deduction or set-off'. See Practice Note: Set-off and deductions from rent for further