conundrum

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

    #31
    HI LHA

    Your post#27 has the regulation from my lease I posted recently.

    What is meant by revoked under pressure please? Pressure from whom?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by johnny49 View Post
      HI LHA

      Your post#27 has the regulation from my lease I posted recently.

      What is meant by revoked under pressure please? Pressure from whom?
      Has it? I pulled that off a pdf to (electronic) hand.

      The one I quoted allows a landlord to issue a regulation and then modify or with draw it.

      If the leaseholders pressure a landlord they might withdraw or amend a regulation.
      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

      Comment


        #33
        Thanks LHA

        I hope you don’t think I was accusing you of plagiarism! I simply meant that (by coincidence) I had posted exactly that wording including the capitals (apart from the addition of numbered passages on my post) at “right to enforce lease covenants“ post #49.

        If you are able to answer my query in that post I would be very grateful.

        Comment


          #34
          An apology

          I realise in hindsight that I am guilty of inadvertently “highjacking” this thread for which I apologise to alizyme and all concerned. There doesn’t appear to be a means of removing my post so all I can do is withdraw and apologise for my mistake. In my defence I can only offer that I am a “newbie” (joined 10 days ago) and am unfamiliar with the format, etiquette and rules of the forum. I dropped in to threads I found relevant to my query without realising that I should start my own thread.

          Johnny49

          Comment


            #35
            Ignoring the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 the effect of section 56(1) LPA is as follows:

            If in a deed expressed to be made between A and B:

            (i) A covenants with B and C that he will confer a benefit on C, C can enforce the obligation

            (ii) A covenants with B that he will confer a benefit on C, views differ on whether C can enforce the obligation

            We are here though only concerned with (i) since the covenant was expressed to be made with "the Lessor and the Lessees of the other flats comprised in the building". However, it seems that whilst for the purpose of section 56(1) the covenantee(s) need not be referred by name but can be referred to by a description enabling them to be identified, they must be in existence at the time the covenant is made. Accordingly, each original lessee only covenanted with the persons who were lessees when he took his lease. That would seem to lead to the anomaly that the lessees who can enforce the covenants are going to differ from lease to lease, and that no lessee is able to enforce the covenants in a lease which predates his own.

            If the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 applies the position is much clearer:

            If in a deed expressed to be made between A and B:

            (i) A covenants with B and C that he will confer a benefit on C, C can enforce the obligation. This is covered not only by section 56, but also by section 1(1)(a) of the C(RTP)A 1999.

            (ii) A covenants with B that he will confer a benefit on C, C can enforce the obligation. This is covered by section 1(1)(b) of the C(RTP)A 1999.

            Further, whilst the persons who benefit may be identified as a member of a class or as answering a particular description they do not need to be in existence at the time the covenant is made - see section 1(3) of the C(RTP)A 1999.

            In the present case, the landlord cannot now enforce the obligation. However (absent any right reserved to the contrary contained in the lease) he had no authority to waive or release the covenant on behalf of the lessees. Who can enforce the obligations depends on whether the lease in question was executed before or after the C(RTP)A 1999 came into force.

            All the above is of course all very well, but as RW forcefully suggests, no sensible person would look to litigate over hanging out washing even if it does lower the tone dreadfully.

            All this reminds me of what David Hockney reported his mother saying while in LA: "It’s strange, all this lovely weather and yet you never see any washing out."

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X