Prospective purchasers of new build properties across the country will be breathing a sigh of relief today, as the Secretary of State for Communities, Sajid Javid, announced plans to ban the sale of leasehold houses by developers.

In many areas, particularly in the North West of England and North Wales, it has been commonplace over recent years for developers to sell newly built houses as leasehold properties. On the face of it, a buyer would ordinarily expect a house to be freehold (and a flat to be leasehold), but a number of recent consumer reports have suggested that buyers of new build houses have been unexpectedly left with a leasehold property and rising ground rents.

It appears to have become standard industry practice in some areas for developers to sell houses with a 999 year lease, which is often confused as being “as good as freehold”. Where a lease reserves ground rent payable to the freeholder however, the effect is that the buyer will be paying rent with no benefit to themselves, possibly for the entire term of the lease. Often, that rent is stated to double every ten years, meaning that a mere £100 annual ground rent in the first year would be £1,600 after 40 years. After considerable pressure to reform this area, Mr Javid has today announced plans to ban ground rent on new build properties with long leases and to work alongside the Law Commission to make the process of extending a lease or purchasing a freehold interest considerably easier.

It remains to be seen whether this will result in a series of retrospective claims against developers and indeed the solicitors who acted for any such buyers, and Meaby&Co will be following these developments with interest.

If you are looking to purchase a new build property, or have recently purchased a new-build leasehold house, please contact Andy Roscoe at Meaby&Co for advice: andy@meaby.co.uk or call 020 7703 5034.

Partner Chris Waters was quoted as an aviation expert in today’s Daily Mail newspaper story which revealed how Ryanair cabin crew were being given new workers’ rights.

Mr Waters was asked to comment in his capacity as solicitor that represents pilots, aviation executives and cabin crew.

The article appeared after the Daily Mail ran an investigation into working conditions for Ryanair staff.

The budget airline has now agreed to recognise cabin crew unions and said it would enter into discussions in the new year.

Following the news, Mr Waters gave the following statement to the newspaper: ‘‘This is excellent news. Cabin crew have frequently been at the bottom of the pecking order in terms of workers rights.

‘I’d like to congratulate the Daily Mail on highlighting issues within Ryanair that sadly workers at other airlines will be all too familiar with.

‘The recognition of cabin crew unions for Ryanair staff is a great step forward for its staff’s rights and working conditions.’

Read the full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5196213/Ryanair-agrees-new-rights-cabin-crews.html

Sparks v Biden [2017] EWHC 1994 (Ch)

Mr Biden was a developer who had taken an option to purchase a plot of land from Mr Sparks for residential development. Mr Biden was to obtain planning permission and, upon exercising the option, implement the development.

The option agreement included provision for an overage payment which arose upon the sale of the residential units. Following a successful exercise of the option and residential development, rather than sell the units, Mr Biden moved in to one himself and let the rest on short term tenancies. The overage agreement failed to provide for this eventuality as it did not oblige Mr Biden to sell the units once complete thus delaying the trigger for the overage payment. Mr Sparks applied to the court to imply a term in to the option agreement requiring Mr Biden to take steps to sell the units.

The judgment held that it would be fair to imply a clause in the option agreement requiring Mr Biden to actively market and thereafter sell the units on the basis that “such a clause is one that is necessary as a matter of business efficacy and without it the Option Agreement lacks practical or commercial coherence”.

For advice on option agreements or any other property matter, email Nicky Cleightonhills on ncleightonhills@meaby.co.uk.

Meaby&Co was recently asked to give expert legal opinion on the rights of Amazon delivery drivers as part of a front page newspaper story.

Our Head of Employment Steven Eckett was extensively quoted throughout the Sunday Mirror newspaper article which revealed how agency drivers delivering Amazon parcels are not getting their full workers’ rights because they are classified as ‘self-employed’.

The newspaper investigation claimed that the agency drivers work for up to 12 hours per shift despite the UK law saying that drivers should not be on duty for more than 11 hours a day. It also claimed that drivers were having to deliver up to 200 parcels a day and were so pushed for time that they were breaking the speeding limit.

Steven said: ‘These workers deliver Amazon packages, collected from an Amazon depot and are given a route designed by Amazon. They are Amazon workers in all but name.

“But Amazon are trying to distance themselves from the workers to circumvent employment law. This needs to be challenged.”

The story and Steven’s quotes were picked up by several other newspaper outlets.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/amazon-drivers-forced-deliver-200-11668823

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/11/amazon-drivers-forced-urinate-bottles-keep-top-deliveries-7151258/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/amazon-drivers-deliver-200-packages-11669904

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5104561/amazon-workers-christmas-minimum-wage/

Meaby&Co recently featured in business aviation magazine P1 outlining how we offer specialist legal advice to pilots and aviation executives.

Click here to view our aviation pageLaw Firm Flies To Rescue Of Pilots

Any Lease under the 1993 Act should generally be on the same terms as the existing lease. However, there is provision in the 1993 Act for either party to require that any term of the existing lease is excluded or modified insofar as would be necessary to remedy a defect in the existing Lease or would be reasonable in the circumstances due to a change in law since the date that the renewed Lease would be entered into.

One term that the writer has found arises from time to time is the change in the law brought about by the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Where as previously tenants were on the hook for tenant covenants throughout the duration of the term granted by the lease, the 1995 Act changed the law to allow tenants to be released on assignment of the lease meaning that the landlord can only seek to pursue breaches against the current tenant from time to time. The case of Huff -v- Trustees of the Sloane Stanley Estate (no.2) 2007 was an unreported decision in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal wherein it was successively argued that it would be reasonable to extend the qualified covenant against assignment of the lease in the last 7 years of the term to any assignment during the duration of the lease. The majority of residential leases do not require the landlord’s consent on assignment, although it is more common for valuable leases in private estates in central London. If you have a lease granted prior to October 1996 and you wish to extend it, it may be considered by the tribunal reasonable to insert an appropriate term in the extended lease so the landlord retains this right, not under statue but in the expressed terms of the lease.

In the view of the writer, it would be fairer for the extended lease to include a requirement for a guarantee from the outgoing tenant guaranteeing the observance of any future tenants of the Lease in respect of the tenant covenants. This would not place either the landlord or the tenant in any worse situation than either was in under the terms of the existing lease. Perhaps it might be argued that the tenant would be on the hook for a longer period than had been granted under the existing lease but perhaps the counter argument here would be that if the landlord had renegotiated a lease extension outside of the statutory procedure, they might be free to require an authorised guarantee agreement in compensation of the change of the law following Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. In reality, landlords do not do this. We find that they are not interested in the covenant of any outgoing tenant and instead focus on the forfeiture provisions in the lease and would take action in this respect against the outgoing tenant. However, food for thought.

If you have any queries with regard to leasehold extensions or enfranchisement, please contact Nicky Cleightonhills on nc@meaby.co.uk or 0207 7035034.