- Know who you are dealing with. Sounds really obvious but is not only crucial but very often got wrong.
- You can deal with someone as an Individual, as a sole trader, as a partnership or as a limited company. Identify which they are as soon as you start dealing with them – not later on during the trading relationship! As some do to their cost…
Possession orders are used by property and land owners, private and public sector, to remove tenants and trespassers from property or land.
As the process is different in each case, this article gives guidance on each situation.
As squatting in residential property is now a criminal offence under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. To remove squatters from residential property, call the Police who will attend, arrest and remove them.
If a landlord wishes to repossess his property from his tenants, he must apply to court for an order of possession. Most private tenancies started on or after 28th February 1997 are assured shorthold tenancies (AST) contact us for further information about how to achieve this.
Orders for possession can be enforced by a County Court Bailiff (CCB) under a warrant, but many private landlords are finding this can take some time. It is possible to apply under Section 42 of the County Courts Act 1984 to transfer the order to the High Court for enforcement by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO).
It will be at the Court’s discretion as to whether they allow the order to be transferred to the High Court.
A commercial landlord can apply for an order for possession against tenants, has the option to use the Common Law remedy of forfeiture of lease, which can be used once the rent is overdue as defined by the period specified in the lease.
On behalf of the landlord we will normally appoint a Certificated Bailiff to enter the premises, change the locks and take back possession of the property.
If the tenant had absconded owing rent, the landlord can repossess under Common Law, then apply for a County Court Judgment (CCJ) for the rent arrears.
Trespassers in commercial property
It seems to be increasingly common for squatters to occupy empty commercial premises since the criminalisation of squatting in residential property.
In this case, the landlord can apply for an order for possession, which will be made out against “persons unknown”. In the majority of cases, the order will be made in the County Court local to the property in question.
However, transferring the order for possession to the High Court for enforcement (using Form N293A) does not require permission from the Court as section 42 does not apply. Once the order has been transferred, a writ of possession will be issued, which the sheriff will then enforce.
Sheriffs are not required to give notice of enforcement – there are sometimes circumstances where it is advisable to do so, but if giving notice may adversely affect the eviction, then it does not need to be given.
Trespassers on land
As with trespassers in commercial property, the order for possession is made against “persons unknown”. It is normally started in the County Court
The order can be transferred to the High Court for enforcement .The sheriff will normally conduct a risk assessment on all large scale evictions of trespassers – from property or from land – to ensure that all the necessary specialists and equipment are available to complete the eviction safely. Once the writ of possession is issued, the sheriff will enforce, normally without giving notice to the squatters.
Not everyone can work from home, the majority of businesses need premises and these are normally occupied under the provisions of a Commercial Lease.
A lease creates many obligations and is invariably drawn to benefit the Landlord and yet it is currently a tenants market. There are plenty of premises out there. When you are in negotiations with the Landlords Agent you should be looking to ensure the following:-
- You only pay your costs, not the Landlord’s or a Superior Landlord’s
- You are entitled to renew the Lease at the end of its term. That way you can go for a shorter term initially with therefore less obligation if your business falters.
- You have a rent free period if you are carrying out any repair works to the premises in getting them ready for your occupation.
- Try and negotiate a break clause after say 2 years in order that you can limit your potential obligations where you might be a new business.
Once you have agreed Heads of Terms with the Landlords Agent, instruct T M Law to negotiate the lease for you with the landlords solicitors or at the very least, have them review the documents and advise you on the detailed terms of the lease.
Call T M Law on 01277 655338 and discuss your situation with us. The initial discussion will be free.
Make sure you get it right from the beginning. It will be a small price to pay to make sure you are set up property and have clear agreement of all relevant issues to the running of the business .
Here is a check list for you:-
- Are you trading with the right business set up (sole trader), company LLP or partnership
- Do you and your partner(s) have a clear idea of your roles or more importantly what each other’s roles will be so that you will work effectively and harmoniously.
- Have you sorted out the little things that can cause so many potential problems between partners
ii. Any unusual working hours necessary
iii. Level of Drawings
- Do you have an exit strategy. If any partner needs to leave either through retirement, ill health, death or you simply fall out with one another (yes it happens !!), can remaining partners take on the shares of the outgoing partner. If you take on the others interest in the business , how will it be valued.
Consider in making provision for the above will limit the potential for dispute and will have a positive effect contributing to the smooth running and successes to the new business.
Consult T M Law we specialise in Business Law
Have you been threatened with the possibility of redundancy?
Take legal advice as soon as possible. Take full advantage of your rights in this difficult situation.
1. WHERE THERE’S A WILL YOU HAVE A WAY…
How many people know the detailed provisions of the Intestacy Rules and in particular, if you do not have a will how your money will be distributed on your death? It will be a large percentage of the population including many lawyers so far as the precise details are concerned…. and yet, if you have not made a will, these will be the rules that are applied to your estate and as to who will benefit in the event of your death.
Where you have a Will, there is a way in which you can make clear provision for those of your loved ones that you wish to benefit and perhaps of equal importance, the people you do not want to benefit.
All of us should make sure we have an up to date will but, if you fall into the any of the following categories you should be heading straight off to see your solicitor.
- You have just got married. Even if you have a will, your existing will be rendered void by your getting married. You will have new obligations in any event
- You have separated or are going through divorce proceedings. It is possible that you might not wish your spouse to benefit beyond his or her strict entitlement to the matrimonial assets.
- You have the joy of a child being born. You are now a father or mother. The responsibility should extend to making sure that adequate provision is made for your child in the event that you and your partner/spouse die together or shortly after each other. Wills do not just deal with money, they can appoint guardians. Also, you are worth far more dead than w alive, given the sort of insurance policies most people take out these days. A proper scheme in administering your assets if both of you were to die so that the child benefits properly would seem to be a fundamental obligation that you should feel as a parent.
- You co-habit with a partner but for many number of reasons do not or cannot marry. If you wish your partner to benefit in the event of your death only a Will will ensure any provision whatsoever.
If the prospect of contemplating your own mortality prevents you from making these sensible and perhaps necessary provisions, treat it as if you had a tooth ache. An unpleasant necessity which actually will probably be a lot cheaper than a visit to the dentist: if your solicitor is a reasonably cheery soul, probably a more pleasant one.
At T M Law we will produce a basic will for £125 plus vat and if there are two of you making mutual wills the charge for both will be £200 plus.v.at
I can assure you the process will be painless (relatively) and I can guarantee that after you have made it you will sleep more easily in your bed at night.
Come along on Wednesday 24th April 2013 and discover the very latest Health and Safety news concerning YOUR business.
Double click on the flyer above for full printable page.
For more information and to enable you to reserve your place, please contact Gary Boyes email@example.com or telephone 01277 821651
Originally published by APIL
It’s a popular myth that lawyers are parasites, out for themselves and their own pockets. In fact, if you have the misfortune to be injured, you will realise that lawyers are the good guys, the ones who fight for your rights and get you what you need and deserve in what can be a challenging, drawn out, even aggressive battle with the wrongdoer.
Current Government proposals on slashing lawyer’s fees have caused outrage because the fees proposed are so low that it will become impossible to be able to afford to do the work. Lawyers are quite simply being priced out of the market. It takes many hours of work to settle a case, and slashing fees means that lawyers face making a loss on each and every case.. If any other profession were to face such a prospect, there would be a huge outcry.The prospect for personal injury lawyers is alarming. Many will shrink their personal injury departments or even close them altogether. Many lawyers may face redundancy and unemployment. However, unlike in other industries, these redundancies will not been brought about by the work disappearing. The work is still very much there. Sadly, people continue to be injured needlessly day after day – at work, on the roads, in public spaces.
As yet, there is no drive from Government actually to reduce injuries to bring down the cost of claims. Instead, it is considering putting in place systems which discourage claims from being brought at all. Part of this approach probably comes from misguided advice that the majority of claims are fraudulent. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers has done much to promote this view, with little hard evidence to support it. We absolutely urge insurers to combat fraud but question whether cutting lawyers’ fees is the best way to do it. We strongly believe genuine claimants should still be able to pursue proper compensation with the advice of an independent lawyer.
Of course, injured people can negotiate directly with the insurance company. But is this really in their best interests? Our research showed that using a lawyer increased the compensation on offer from an insurer by up to ten times. And it’s not just us. The Financial Services Authority found that people were awarded just under 275 per cent more in compensation through court proceedings. It’s no surprise really as the conflict is huge. Insurers are commercial organisations looking to maximise profits for shareholders, and reduce the compensation paid out to injured people. This is a key element of increasing their profits.
But redundancy has its costs too. The taxman loses out when law firms close. Unemployment brings a greater burden on the country. The costs of caring for injured people who don’t receive the compensation they need because they can’t find help to obtain it, fall on the NHS and the state rather than the wrongdoer. It’s hardly a vote winner.
So, who will help the victims when all the lawyers are priced out of the market? Who will advise the injured person as to the right amount of compensation? Who will prioritise their needs for rehabilitation? Who will make this a fair fight? Do we really want to lose the good guys?
The attached article was originally published by APIL the association of personal injury lawyers and is well worth a read.
Those who embrace scrutiny generally have nothing to hide, and welcome it as a means of giving assurance to the outside world that all is as it should be. Transparency engenders trust.
Those who eschew it, however, are often fearful of what will be revealed. And certainly, resisting scrutiny builds distrust and suspicion. So often, resisting scrutiny is about hiding the indefensible.
Scrutiny is particularly important in public life. The electorate places its implicit trust in those it elects, and scrutiny guarantees that trust is not misplaced.
So what do I mean by scrutiny? Well, it could take the form of a freedom of information (FOI) request to the Government – a simple written request for information – the agenda for a summit, the guest list for an event, the minutes of a meeting. Many organisations, including APIL, ask for such things occasionally to get a feel for how decisions are made and policies formed, what arguments are debated, who contributes to the thinking, what evidence is gathered. They do this to satisfy themselves that the thinking is proportionate, reasonable and balanced. In our case at APIL it helps inform the way we operate as an organisation, what research we carry out and what evidence we collect, how we, in turn, form our policies, and how we work with our members to ensure that they are prepared for a changing environment.
Obviously, if all such information was in the public domain there would be no need to ask, but it isn’t. Freedom of Information requests aren’t generally onerous to deal with – generally a quick e-mail in reply to a request , with an attachment, is all that’s needed. With modern technology, information is readily available at the touch of a button. But I believe unnecessary work is too often created by internal debate within the agency which has been asked to provide information about whether something should be released or not, so making a mountain out of a molehill.
Governments should always be able to justify their decisions, to show that they can provide evidence for their choices. Data and evidence should be used to shape a policy to ensure it will deliver its objectives. Governments tend to fear scrutiny when their decision-making is ideological rather than based on evidence, and they are unable to justify their actions. A Government which has made a good, informed decision will never be scared about providing the evidence. So what are we to make of reports that our Government is considering reducing the so-called ‘burden’ of FOI requests?
The press uses FOI requests as a tool to ensure ministers and civil servants conduct themselves in an ‘above board’ way. Too often, FOI requests show decision-makers in a poor light. Indeed, the MP expenses scandal would have been exposed via FOI requests had it not been overtaken by a leak. This is good investigative journalism through legitimate means.
FOIs aren’t the only thing under threat. Consultations, a well established method of gathering evidence, are now also viewed as a burden, rather than an asset. Consultations take 12 weeks – why? Because it takes time to assimilate evidence and carry out research to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It adds to, rather than inhibits, policy development. Yet the Government has now warned that we should no longer expect 12-week consultations. Is it that policy makers don’t want to wait 12 weeks or is it that they just don’t want to be questioned?
The Government is also considering removing the facility to judicially review (JR) its actions. The recent JR involving Richard Branson is a classic example of why this procedure is vital – the Government had not followed procedure and had made a decision that was fundamentally flawed. No-one enters into a JR lightly – they can typically cost six figures, and the adverse consequences can be huge. A JR is simply a last resort when a Government won’t listen.
Scrutiny shines a light on decision-making and mediates behaviour. Let’s not return to the dark days where decisions were made without impunity behind closed doors. We have too much to lose.
On 1st April this year the law is changing in relation to accident claims. If you bring a claim for an accident after this date, you will end up paying some of your own legal costs.
contact us at TM Law for details of the changes and for hwo to ensure we maximise your compensation
we have a specialist personal injury solicitor who is a member of the law societys’ personal injury panel and a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
so dont delay contact us today for your free interview and advice