From the 6th April 2015 the maximum available discount for RTB matters will increase. The annual increase (6th April 2015 – 5th April 2016) is linked to the percentage rate change in the Consumer Price Index.
The discount for RTB matters 2015/16 are now:-
£103,900.00 for homes in the London Boroughs
£77,900.00 for homes outside of the London Boroughs
All transactions that commenced prior to 5th April 2015 will not be eligible for the increased discount and so will not need an updated s.125 notice.
Only applications made after 5th April 2015 will be eligible for the updated discount.
On 18 March 2015, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, delivered the March 2015 Budget.
As far as the property industry is concerned, the main announcement of interest was the government’s commitment to the long-promised review of business rates. The property industry has been lobbying the government for some time on this issue and its crippling effect on businesses in England and Wales continues to hinder economic recovery.
The Help to Buy: ISA is another step in the right direction for those looking to get on the housing ladder but one wonders how much it will really help when, in certain parts of the country, the rise in property prices continues to outstrip wages.
The government continues to tweak around the edges of the planning system. However, its proposed reform of the CPO procedure will interest those advising on property development.
On 31st January 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) launched a consultation on proposals to streamline the resale of shared ownership properties to make it quicker and easier to sell them.
Currently, if a shared ownership householder wants to sell their home, first they must seek the consent of their housing provider (usually a housing association) to assign the lease. To gain this consent the shared owner must put their intention to sell in writing to their housing provider. Once the shared owner has done this, the housing provider has eight weeks in which to decide whether to nominate itself or another purchaser to acquire the shared owner’s interest in the lease before the home can be put on the open market.
The opportunity on the part of the housing provider to nominate the next purchaser continues during the period of shared ownership for each owner and for 21 years after a householder has bought the property outright.
These provisions are perceived to have hampered the selling of shared ownership homes because:
They overcomplicate the process when the householder wants a quick and straightforward transaction.
Lenders see the process as a fetter on realising the value of the home. This has meant the market for lending on shared ownership homes is restricted.
The consultation is therefore considering how the process can be revised to reduce the delays currently caused and to simplify the procedure. In particular, it is looking at how the pre-emption right could be watered down, especially as in practice, housing providers do not use it as often as expected.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) introduced limits on the recovery of service charges. The LTA 1985 has been substantially amended by subsequent Acts, most notably the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002).
In the LTA 1985 the limit originally placed on the service charge that could be recovered was a fixed amount (prescribed by the Secretary of State) for the cost of the qualifying works. If the landlord wishes to pass on its costs to tenants in excess of the fixed amount, he has to comply with the tenant consultation process prescribed by the LTA 1985.
The CLRA 2002 changed the limit (currently set at £250) so that it attached to the amount of the contribution sought from the tenant and not the cost of the works. A consultation process is still required.
In the recent case of Phillips v Francis and Others the High Court held that the correct approach to determine when section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act required a landlord to consult with tenants was to aggregate all works in a given year. The Court of Appeal recently overturned this decision and held that this clearly was not a sensibile approach and cannot have been intended by Parliament.
The approach would have required landlords to consult on any service charge items, no matter how small, once the £250 per tenant limit had been reached. Following the latest ruling it is considered landlords may identify sets of “qualifying works” for calcualting whether the £250 threshold has been reached.
As some of you may know, Friday 5th September is the first anniversary of Gill’s death. Thanks to the generous donations received from colleagues, clients, family and friends to the fund, and to the fund raising efforts of Gill’s daughters, Alice and Natasha, we have received the following update from Tujatane Tongabezi Trust School:
“We cannot thank you all enough for this amazing contribution to the children of Tujatane, Tongabezi Trust School. I just wanted to forward to you some photos taken yesterday. The building is almost complete.
The left hand room is the art/sewing room – our Metcalf room. Beth has had a meeting with the local community to discuss plans for our sewing project and we have a large number wishing to get involved and so very happy to have this opportunity.”
Order made increasing right to buy maximum discount for houses
On 20 July 2014, the Housing (Right to Buy) (Maximum Percentage Discount) (England) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1915) was made and came into force on 21 July 2014.
The Order increases the maximum percentage discount for a house under the right to buy to 70% and also:
Applies where a tenant’s notice claiming the right to buy has already been served but the conveyance or grant of the property has not yet taken place. However, this will not apply where, within 21 days of the Order, a tenant has given written notice to their landlord that they would prefer the relevant percentage discount which applied prior to the date of the order to apply.
States that where a section 125 notice has been served by a landlord, but the relevant property has not been conveyed and its price has changed as a result of the Order, then a landlord must serve an amended section 125 notice reflecting the new maximum percentage discount.
Where there has been a change of secure tenant after a notice claiming the right to buy and the tenant has submitted a notice that they do not want the higher discount to apply, then this should be disregarded.
The Order follows the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limit on Discount) (England) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1378), which increases the cap on the discount available under the right to buy to £102,7000 for dwelling-houses situated within the areas of London authorities and £77,000 for dwelling-houses outside the areas of London authorities.
We are delighted to announce that Jane Sewell joined us as a Partner on 5 January 2014. Jane previously worked as a Partner at Winckworh Sherwood. Jane will be working within our Development Department, focusing predominantly on working with our existing Registered Provider client base.
Jane has over twenty five years experience acting for Housebuilders ( both in house and private practice) as well as for Registered Providers. Jane’s arrival will add further expertise and experience to our existing team
The Courts have recently considered a case concerning the service of service charge demands. Although the Upper Tribunal eventually found in favour of the Landlord the case serves as a useful reminder to check the small print and the service of notice provisions under leasehold documentation. To get it wrong can be costly for either landlords or tenants.
A lease of a flat contained a notice provision that provided:
“Any demand for payment notice or other documents required or authorised to be given to the Lessee shall be well and sufficiently given if sent by the Lessor or the Lessor’s Agent through the post by registered post or recorded delivery letter addressed to the Lessee at the flat or attached to the door or doors thereto Any demand notice or other document required or authorised to be given by the Lessee shall be well and sufficiently given if left or sent through the post by registered or recorded delivery letter addressed to the Lessor at the last known address or registered office of the Lessor and any demand notice or other document sent by post shall be deemed to have been served forty-eight hours after such posting.”
The landlord sent service charge demands by ordinary second-class post. The tenant claimed that it was a mandatory requirement of the notice provision that if the demands were posted, then it must be by registered or recorded delivery post. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) agreed with this interpretation and found that the service charge demands were not validly served. As the demands were invalid, no service charge was payable in respect of four service charge years.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) over-ruled the decision of the LVT. The Upper Tribunal held that the clause was not mandatory and did not require documents served by post only to be served by registered post or recorded delivery. The Upper Tribunal concluded the clause did not prevent service by other means.
The Upper Tribunal concluded that if documents were sent by registered post or recorded delivery then they would be “well and sufficiently given”. If all demands had to be given by registered post or recorded delivery, the words “well and sufficiently given if sent” would be unnecessary.
The Upper Tribunal regarded the deeming provision in the final sentence as only relevant where documents were sent by ordinary post. In that sentence, “post” meant ordinary post and did not encompass registered post or recorded delivery (now known as special delivery) where documents are tracked.
The Courts have recently considered a case concerning the service of service charge demands. Although the Upper Tribunal eventually found in favour of the Landlord the case serves as a useful reminder to check the small print and the service of notice provisions under leasehold documentation. To get it wrong can be costly for either landlords or tenants.
A lease of a flat contained a notice provision that provided:
“Any demand for payment notice or other documents required or authorised to be given to the Lessee shall be well and sufficiently given if sent by the Lessor or the Lessor’s Agent through the post by registered post or recorded delivery letter addressed to the Lessee at the flat or attached to the door or doors thereto Any demand notice or other document required or authorised to be given by the Lessee shall be well and sufficiently given if left or sent through the post by registered or recorded delivery letter addressed to the Lessor at the last known address or registered office of the Lessor and any demand notice or other document sent by post shall be deemed to have been served forty-eight hours after such posting.”
The landlord sent service charge demands by ordinary second-class post. The tenant claimed that it was a mandatory requirement of the notice provision that if the demands were posted, then it must be by registered or recorded delivery post. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) agreed with this interpretation and found that the service charge demands were not validly served. As the demands were invalid, no service charge was payable in respect of four service charge years.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) over-ruled the decision of the LVT. The Upper Tribunal held that the clause was not mandatory and did not require documents served by post only to be served by registered post or recorded delivery. The Upper Tribunal concluded the clause did not prevent service by other means.
The Upper Tribunal concluded that if documents were sent by registered post or recorded delivery then they would be “well and sufficiently given”. If all demands had to be given by registered post or recorded delivery, the words “well and sufficiently given if sent” would be unnecessary.
The Upper Tribunal regarded the deeming provision in the final sentence as only relevant where documents were sent by ordinary post. In that sentence, “post” meant ordinary post and did not encompass registered post or recorded delivery (now known as special delivery) where documents are tracked.
An Association may find itself buying a property from a mortgagee exercising its power of sale. This might be because a mortgagee wants to surrender a shared ownership lease rather than staircasing or is exercising a power of sale over a property surrounded by other properties owned by the Association.
The involvement of a mortgagee does not make a great deal of difference to the conveyancing process. The mortgagee will want to complete the sale as quickly as possible. It will not want to negotiate documents and will not provide extensive replies to enquiries. Accordingly, the transaction is likely to move much more swiftly than a standard residential purchase.
There are a few points which are worth noting:
The mortgagee will not give much information and will exclude itself from any liability in respect of ownership of fixtures and fittings. This means that the purchaser needs to be careful not to dispose of any items left at the property which may still be owned by third parties under rental agreements etc. It may be prudent to store any such items before disposing of them.
Special provisions will be inserted to assist the mortgagee in defending any subsequent claims that the property may have been sold at less than its proper market value. This may include provisions permitting entry to the property within a certain period of time following completion in order to carry out further valuations. There may also be a requirement that the mortgagee must be notified of any subsequent sale within a limited period (e.g. six months) so that it is made aware of any uplift in the price.
The mortgagee will not need to provide a discharge of its charge registered on the title. Instead, a special type of Transfer will be used (Land Registry form TR2) which will automatically release the charge when the Transfer is completed.
A mortgagee is not exempt from the requirement to provide an EPC. This will still be required by the purchase as it can re-let or sell the property.
An Association will need to check that there is no underlying Section 106 Agreement which may restrict its proposed use of the property. Some Section 106 Agreements contain wording which will reactivate the affordable use requirements of property where they fall back into the ownership of a registered provider.
Despite the few differences and points to note mentioned above, transactions with mortgagees do usually proceed smoothly and are more straightforward than standard purchases.
We use cookies to optimise our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
