Sale and rent back (SRB) involves individuals—often those facing financial difficulties—selling their home at a discount in return for the right to remain as a tenant for a set period. Following an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, which confirmed that many SRB consumers were not being treated fairly, the government asked the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to regulate the market.
Regulation has been in place since last year but the full regulation system will come into force on 1st July 2010.
The key provisions of the new regime are as follows:
SRB customers must be given security of tenure for a minimum of five years, through the use of a fixed-term, assured shorthold tenancy agreement.
Firms offering SRB products must meet capital resources requirements and have professional indemnity insurance.
There will be a 14-day cooling-off period to give consumers more time to make decisions and seek advice on sale and rent back.
A valuation must be carried out by a competent valuer who is independent of the SRB provider.
The valuer will be liable to the customer as well as to the SRB firm.
The firm must carry out an "affordability and appropriateness" check for all SRB sales to make sure that the SRB deal is right for the consumer.
Cold calling and dropping promotional leaflets through letter boxes will be banned.
The use of terms like "fast sale", "rescue" and "cash quickly" are prohibited in promotional literature.
A risk warning must be used in SRB adverts.
This is good news for consumers who are thinking of using these products and may be desperate to stay in their homes at any cost - the system should ensure that the deal isn't entirely in the SRB company's favour.
Anyone considering one of these products should seek legal advice before signing any documentation.
Friday 21 May 2010
Thursday 20 May 2010
Cause to celebrate!
Common sense has stuck its head above the parapet!
The government has with immediate effect suspended the need for the preparation of a Home Information Pack when selling your house.
So not only will you be able to get your house onto the market sooner (because you won't have to wait for the HIP to be prepared) but the cost of the HIP (averaging around £300.00) will no longer be a consideration for sellers.
The need for an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) remains.
It's a shame for all the estate agents touting for HIP business, but good news for the rest of us!
The government has with immediate effect suspended the need for the preparation of a Home Information Pack when selling your house.
So not only will you be able to get your house onto the market sooner (because you won't have to wait for the HIP to be prepared) but the cost of the HIP (averaging around £300.00) will no longer be a consideration for sellers.
The need for an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) remains.
It's a shame for all the estate agents touting for HIP business, but good news for the rest of us!
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Stephen Duffy says
I received a newsletter the other day from the Probate Registry which said that the longest Will they have on record is over 95,000 words long, and the shortest is just 3 words long – it reads simply “all to wife”. I recommend a happy medium of somewhere in between those two extremes!
Product warnings
In this age of litigation, many manufacturers include warnings on their products either to avoid being sued or sometimes to avoid being sued again for the thing they're warning against.
See if you can guess why these warnings appeared........
"Do not use for personal hygiene" - on a toilet brush
"This product moves when used" - on a scooter
"Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally" - on a digital thermometer (seriously - ewww!)
"Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating"
- on a food processor
Apparently some people never learn!
See if you can guess why these warnings appeared........
"Do not use for personal hygiene" - on a toilet brush
"This product moves when used" - on a scooter
"Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally" - on a digital thermometer (seriously - ewww!)
"Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating"
- on a food processor
Apparently some people never learn!
Police to have increased powers of charging
The new Home Secretary has announced that police officers will take back some of the powers which had been taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to charge someone with a criminal offence.
The new powers will apply to minor offences (so the police won't be able to decide whether to charge someone with, say murder - that will still be done by the CPS!) but with any luck it will mean a cut in bureaucracy and perhaps more importantly some of those cases which we all feel should never go to court will never see the inside of a courtroom!
The new powers will apply to minor offences (so the police won't be able to decide whether to charge someone with, say murder - that will still be done by the CPS!) but with any luck it will mean a cut in bureaucracy and perhaps more importantly some of those cases which we all feel should never go to court will never see the inside of a courtroom!
Tuesday 18 May 2010
New Recruit
Giles Betts joins Buckles Solicitors as
Head of Employment
Giles trained and qualified as a solicitor at Mills & Reeve’s Cambridge office from 1997 until 2007. He then worked at Hewitsons from 2007 until 2010 where he was a Partner and Team Leader for their Cambridge Employment Team. Giles joined Buckles in April 2010 as Head of Employment.
Giles advises businesses, the public sector and senior executives on the full spectrum of employment law issues, such as: implementing redundancies and business reorganisations, TUPE, managing employment terminations, conducting disciplinary and grievance procedures and issues to consider when dealing with disabled employees or managing long term sickness absence.
He has extensive experience of managing claims in the Employment Tribunals involving issues such as: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, sex and race discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract claims. In addition Giles drafts contracts of employment, directors’ service agreements, company policies and procedures and compromise agreements. Giles also has experience in drafting post termination restrictions and advising clients on enforcing such covenants and protecting confidential information.
The Legal 500 describes Giles as “approachable and commercially minded”.
Head of Employment
Giles trained and qualified as a solicitor at Mills & Reeve’s Cambridge office from 1997 until 2007. He then worked at Hewitsons from 2007 until 2010 where he was a Partner and Team Leader for their Cambridge Employment Team. Giles joined Buckles in April 2010 as Head of Employment.
Giles advises businesses, the public sector and senior executives on the full spectrum of employment law issues, such as: implementing redundancies and business reorganisations, TUPE, managing employment terminations, conducting disciplinary and grievance procedures and issues to consider when dealing with disabled employees or managing long term sickness absence.
He has extensive experience of managing claims in the Employment Tribunals involving issues such as: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, sex and race discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract claims. In addition Giles drafts contracts of employment, directors’ service agreements, company policies and procedures and compromise agreements. Giles also has experience in drafting post termination restrictions and advising clients on enforcing such covenants and protecting confidential information.
The Legal 500 describes Giles as “approachable and commercially minded”.
Accessing Your Own Land
Prior to the introduction of revised procedures (set out in regulations under section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which came into effect in July 2002), people who had to cross common land in order to reach their homes were sometimes denied the right of access to their own property, due to an anomaly in the law. In order to gain access, it was necessary for them to obtain an "easement" from the owner of the common land. This could be very expensive for the person needing the right of access.
Under the revised rules, the right of easement is now statutory and, provided the relevant conditions are met and procedures complied with, the owners of the common land cannot object. In return they will be paid as follows:
0.25% of the value of the premises if these came into being before 1 January 1906;
0.5% of the value of the premises, if they came into being between 1 January 1906 and 1 December 1930; and
2% of the value of the premises if they came into being on or after 1 December 1930.
Once payment has been made, the right of access will continue in perpetuity.
Under the revised rules, the right of easement is now statutory and, provided the relevant conditions are met and procedures complied with, the owners of the common land cannot object. In return they will be paid as follows:
0.25% of the value of the premises if these came into being before 1 January 1906;
0.5% of the value of the premises, if they came into being between 1 January 1906 and 1 December 1930; and
2% of the value of the premises if they came into being on or after 1 December 1930.
Once payment has been made, the right of access will continue in perpetuity.
Battle of the Forms - who wins?
A legally binding contract requires offer and acceptance. However, it is not unusual for commercial transactions to be negotiated by a series of documents (e.g. request for quotation, quotation, purchase order, acknowledgment of purchase order etc.) each with reference to that party’s T&Cs.
Where each subsequent document seeks to impose different terms, it will amount to a counter-offer which requires acceptance by the other party. The usual position is that the last party to send its document prior to performance will have its T&Cs govern the contract – providing the other party can be said to have accepted it by way of its conduct. But, can this rule be overridden? Certainly Tekdata thought so in Tekdata v Amphenol. The parties had a long standing trading relationship where Amphenol supplied cable connectors to Tekdata, who then supplied various cable assembly products up the contractual chain. Tekdata brought a claim against Amphenol for late delivery and goods not being fit for purpose.
The last pre-contract document was Amphenol’s Acknowledgement of Purchase Order which unsurprisingly referred to Amphenol’s T&Cs. However, Tekdata argued that due to the parties’ trading relationship and agreements with other parties in the contractual chain (where time was of the essence) it must have been the parties’ intention that Tekdata’s T&Cs (as per its Purchase Order) were incorporated. On appeal, the Court said it would require very strong evidence to displace the traditional rule of offer and acceptance where there is a battle of forms, and so Amphenol’s T&Cs were the ones applying to the contract.
COMMENT
A battle of the forms can have a number of consequences, some of which may be surprising to the parties. The message is that a legally binding contract still requires an offer to be unequivocally accepted – whether by words or conduct.
Where each subsequent document seeks to impose different terms, it will amount to a counter-offer which requires acceptance by the other party. The usual position is that the last party to send its document prior to performance will have its T&Cs govern the contract – providing the other party can be said to have accepted it by way of its conduct. But, can this rule be overridden? Certainly Tekdata thought so in Tekdata v Amphenol. The parties had a long standing trading relationship where Amphenol supplied cable connectors to Tekdata, who then supplied various cable assembly products up the contractual chain. Tekdata brought a claim against Amphenol for late delivery and goods not being fit for purpose.
The last pre-contract document was Amphenol’s Acknowledgement of Purchase Order which unsurprisingly referred to Amphenol’s T&Cs. However, Tekdata argued that due to the parties’ trading relationship and agreements with other parties in the contractual chain (where time was of the essence) it must have been the parties’ intention that Tekdata’s T&Cs (as per its Purchase Order) were incorporated. On appeal, the Court said it would require very strong evidence to displace the traditional rule of offer and acceptance where there is a battle of forms, and so Amphenol’s T&Cs were the ones applying to the contract.
COMMENT
A battle of the forms can have a number of consequences, some of which may be surprising to the parties. The message is that a legally binding contract still requires an offer to be unequivocally accepted – whether by words or conduct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
