Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Jeffrey Shaw

Moderators
  • Content Count

    14,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeffrey Shaw

  • Rank
    Mr
  • Birthday 03/09/1954

Personal Information

  • Location
    Sheffield
  • Occupation
    Solicitor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do there not seem to be a great many more shootings just lately? If so, why?
  2. Crumbs- something new. How, though, would one post the taste of Henderson's or of one's favourite tipple?
  3. Better to ask one's GP. Many already offer inoculations free. Mine provides those for both pneumonia and influenza. For some reason, they have to be injected into opposite sides of the body.
  4. No, not at all. It unfairly discriminated against both groups- those called 'coloured' and those called 'black'.
  5. HSBC UK Bank plc is getting worse in many respects. It frequently now intercepts large outgoing payments and holds them back until it has verified that the sending party has verified the receiving party's bank details- yes, despite the (long overdue) "Confirmation of Payee' procedure implemented this year.
  6. No- just the opposite, in fact! Almost every 'modern' long lease demises only: a. the airspace within the flat; b. internal non-load bearing walls between any two rooms in the flat; and c. just the inner skim of plaster on the walls/ceiling plus the top bit of the floor. All other parts of the building (structural or otherwise), and all service media outside the individual flats, will be clearly stated to be Common Parts.
  7. Banner Cross closed a few weeks ago after being gradually run down to just three mornings a week.
  8. During apartheid in South Africa, 'black' and 'coloured' meant quite different groups of people. But nowadays the groupthink mindset means that people innocently using a word disliked by a listener or reader are at risk of being attacked by an online mob comprising- quite possibly- people to whom the supposedly derogatory epithet does not even apply but who are just angry!
  9. The answer is still very unclear but here a few comments. 1. Assume a block built by L which still owns the freehold reversion, that each flat's the subject of its own long lease granted by L to T, and that there's no third-party management company joined in the leases nor any RTM company. 2. L is initially responsible for all block outgoings and service delivery. 3. But each lease obliges T to pay service charge and sets-out what items fall within this charge. 4. So replacement of external cladding- on Common Parts- is always going to be a service charge outgoing; L unloads the cost onto T. 5. Maybe L might have rights of recourse against its contractors and/or its block insurer and/or NHBC etc. If so, its contractual rights would perhaps free the service charge from having to fund the works. 6. Those contractors who selected/designed/ordered/added the cladding might all be liable to L, in varying proportions.
  10. No, each one-unit bond has an equal chance. But one cannot buy fewer than 25 at once. See https://www.nsandi.com/products/premium-bonds No- it's 1070p, or £10.70.
  11. Also, either of the Universities might be interested in taking-on a letting of your property for sub-letting.
  12. 1. If the lease does not contain a covenant requiring the Tenant (T) to obtain consent from the Landlord (L), you don't- it's as simple as that, and Coppen cannot unilaterally change the rules. 2. Even if L's consent is needed, beware of paying an inordinate amount for it. See s.19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 [yes, really] below, with my added underlining: In all leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against the making of improvements without a licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall be deemed, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, to be subject to a proviso that such licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld; but this proviso does not preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any damage to or diminution in the value of the premises or any neighbouring premises belonging to the landlord, and of any legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with such licence or consent nor, in the case of an improvement which does not add to the letting value of the holding, does it preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent, where such a requirement would be reasonable, an undertaking on the part of the tenant to reinstate the premises in the condition in which they were before the improvement was executed. 3. This means, in short, that: a. L cannot refuse consent unreasonably; b. T does not need to pay L a lump sum for consent; but c. L is entitled to demand only its proper fees for giving consent- nothing more.
  13. BBC reported [0942hrs today] that Sheaf Street is now open again and trains are back to normal.
  14. Er, wrong. If you've owned a house as its leaseholder for two years or more, you have a statutory right to buy-out your landlord and anyone else up to and including the freehold reversioner. See the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Yes, there's also a right to extend the house's lease by fifty years- but that's rarely worthwhile. So 'CHAPS' was wrong- perhaps accidentally?- in what it told you.
  15. I hope that you also have written consents from: a. your own landlord (reversioner) if what you own is a leasehold flat; and b. your mortgagee (lender) if your property is in mortgage- unless it's a BTL one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.