EG 06-02-21

p.19 Flexible working ‘the Flex sector’ is consolidating as some operators are going bust as a result of Covid though post covid it may become popular again as tenants reduce their dedicated office space if there is more home-working post covid.

P.21 lots of office and resi development! 

P.41 More Telecoms wars - case law is evolving on how much rent will have to pay under the new TCC. Rooftop - £5k, rural - £750 to £1,200. MUCH less than the old regime. Round one to Telcos. Good read for anyone with a mast on their site.

p.44 Sustainability. Discusses what this nebulous concept means in practice for real estate. Still not clear to me having read it.

P.46 Grenfell & disclaimers - what do EWS1 actual do and who do they protect? £1.6bn flat deals lots in Sept and 1.3m homes are unmortgagable. Useful article explaining the good and the bad of the scheme and - can they be relied on by flat-owners or buyer? Probably not!! So not much use after all - meaning it may still be impossible to sell such flats

P.47 Analysis of the many gaps in the Govts announcement on better lease extension etc rights in January - useful commentary for anyone advising existing tenants or buyers.

P.48 Can employers ask staff if they have had the covid jab? This simple question unleashes discrimination issues (anti-vax nutters aside), religious, disability, risk, legitimate aims, reasonable adjustments, health and safety and even data protection has to be considered. 

P. To immunity and beyond!  What should landlords of premises used for vaccination bear in mind? Planning law (Class E(e),  but not class F1 or F2, also the GPDO PD rights introduced cover certain temporary works. Leases may prohibit such uses even if planning does not. What happens if this becomes a permanent feature rather than a temporary issue?

P.50 Are landlords liable to reckless visitors? James v The White Lion [2021] EWCA Civ 31 A hotel guest fell off the hotel room window sill to his death. Hotel was prosecuted for breach of HASAWA74, and pleaded guilty as there was no sash-restrictor. In the ensuring civil case, claiming breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 57, the dec’d was held 60% contrib, but hotel was still liable as a £7 restrictor would have prevented the sash opening and resulting fall. Interesting read.. 

P.50 LRHUDA 93 case - Ashford v Mill Court Walton [2021] UKUT 11 - Though the leases of some flats did not have a right to park at the front of the block, the ‘nominee purchases’ company claimed one in their notice to buy the freehold, as they had always parked there. Held - goes back to the lease - no easement so no right to claim it.

p.51 RTM - looks at the complex problems created when a RTM company seeks to acquire the management of buildings occupied by shared ownership or social rent tenants. Def must read it you are considering this

RSS Feed 

This site uses cookies. But unlike WhatsApp, Facebook and the rest we don't trawl your phone and PC for your personal data and sell it to advertisers!