• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Own a flat? Think again.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Own a flat? Think again.

    Grimason v Cates [2013] EWHC 2304 (QB) (26 July 2013)

    Own a flat? Think again.

    Grimason was a case where the landlord obtained forfeiture of a lease on the basis that the tenant had not paid ground rent totalling £600. Grimason had bought the flat in 2006 for £100,000. She didn’t attend the forfeiture proceedings because, on her case, she had not been aware of them due to a failure properly to serve her with them. The forfeiture order was made in June 2011. Nine months later the landlord sold the flat for circa £100,000.

    Needless to say Grimason appealed. Her submissions on failure to serve were rejected. So were her arguments that the forfeiture hearing had not been a ‘trial’ as such and so her seeking of relief from the forfeiture order should be considered under CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions) and not the stricter CPR 39.3(5) failure to attend trial criteria. Grimason failed on all counts – see our report below.

    But! What was really interesting from my perspective was that the end result was, in effect, that the landlord ‘recovered’ £100,000 to satisfy a debt of £600. That’s arguably something of a windfall. Grimason had tried to argue unjust enrichment and restitution but these failed. She then tried to argue that the result was so disproportionate as to amount to a decision that no reasonable tribunal could have come to (Wednesbury principles) and a breach of her Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 of the First Protocol: right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Disappointingly, in dismissing this ground of appeal the judge simply stated it lacked merit without providing further analysis.
    "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

    #2
    Go for a freehold then (if you can afford it)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by yasockie View Post
      Go for a freehold then (if you can afford it)
      MF would probably prefer to buy whole building and evict tenants over small unpaid ground rent

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by AtW View Post
        MF would probably prefer to buy whole building and evict tenants over small unpaid ground rent
        Sounds like she was up to no good and not paying her bills because she thought she could get away with it.

        BTW Property is never your own in England and Wales have a look at compulsory purchase orders......
        "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
          Sounds like she was up to no good and not paying her bills because she thought she could get away with it.

          BTW Property is never your own in England and Wales have a look at compulsory purchase orders......
          But even without compulsory purchase, "leasehold" is not something that would be called "ownership" anywhere else.

          I don't want to start a rant (nor am I anti-English) but leasehold is a symbol of just how feudal England remains.

          Comment


            #6
            Does this affect owners that live in seven bedroomed detached mini mansions set in five acres of landscaped grounds?

            Not really relevant here is it?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
              Does this affect owners that live in seven bedroomed detached mini mansions set in five acres of landscaped grounds?
              Only seven bedrooms INSKPE!
              Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state.

              No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
                Does this affect owners that live in seven bedroomed detached mini mansions set in five acres of landscaped grounds?

                Not really relevant here is it?

                It depends if the mini mansion is freehold or leasehold really. There are a few places where the land is part of a much larger estate and never sold.

                The whole case that Paddy posted strikes me as more than a bit weird.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post

                  The whole case that Paddy posted strikes me as more than a bit weird.
                  Agreed.

                  There is more to it than that.

                  If the place was full of stuff and she wasn't living there, then she was probably causing a nuisance in some way.
                  "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                    Agreed.

                    There is more to it than that.

                    If the place was full of stuff and she wasn't living there, then she was probably causing a nuisance in some way.
                    If you read the law report you will find that was not the case. There are a plethora of landlords and managing agents who wait in the wings to make a killing by the use of the repossession laws.
                    "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X