Septic date looming A leading residential property lawyer is warning local householders with a septic tank to get up to speed with new rules and regulations issued by the Environment Agency.
David Morgan says that property owners with a septic tank need to be aware that the regulations on domestic septic tanks changed in 2010, with owners of existing systems having until January 1, 2012 to register them with the Environment Agency.
New systems will also be subject to registration and must be constructed and installed in accordance with current British Standards.
David explains: “If you already have a ‘Consent to Discharge’ then you do not need to register and the Environment Agency will automatically register the septic tank with exempt status. If it does not qualify for exempt status then the consent will convert into an Environmental Permit. The exempt status or permit could be lost if the conditions of registration are not kept. The conditions principally deal with proper maintenance of the system.”
The new rules are of particular importance if you are selling or buying a property with a septic tank. David said: “The new regime means that when you sell the property it is not necessary to notify the Environment Agency of the change of ownership provided the septic tank is operated and maintained properly. However, you must give written details to the new owner about the discharge and the conditions that must be met. Also, you must give the new owner any maintenance records.”
Application for registration is relatively straightforward. It is best to do it online as online applications are processed more quickly. It is only necessary to register once. Registration is generally free but, if registration can’t be accepted, then it will be necessary to apply for a permit for which there is a charge.
David concludes: “If you are about to buy a property with a septic tank then you should check that, either the septic tank has already been registered, or get the current owner to register it with exempt status (or get a permit) before exchange of contracts and completion.”
For further advice visit www.environment-agency.gov.uk or call David Morgan on 0845 111 5050.
Showing posts with label commercial property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercial property. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Friday, 30 July 2010
New solicitor for growing commercial property team
Higgs & Sons has appointed a new solicitor to strengthen its commercial property team.
Philip Gray (26) joins Waterfront-based Higgs from Kirwans in Liverpool.
Higgs’ nine-strong commercial property team is one of the leading providers of advice in the West Midlands. The team’s expertise includes acquisition and disposal of freehold and leasehold commercial property, acting for property investors and property portfolio managers, acting for clients looking to develop or sell land for development and acting for financial institutions to provide advice and assistance on property-backed security.
Philip Gray (26) joins Waterfront-based Higgs from Kirwans in Liverpool.
Higgs’ nine-strong commercial property team is one of the leading providers of advice in the West Midlands. The team’s expertise includes acquisition and disposal of freehold and leasehold commercial property, acting for property investors and property portfolio managers, acting for clients looking to develop or sell land for development and acting for financial institutions to provide advice and assistance on property-backed security.
Speaking of his move to the Black Country, Philip said: “This is a great move for me. The commercial property team has an excellent reputation and is supported by leading lawyers from other departments within the firm. I’m looking forward to helping the department grow even further in the future.”
Peter Coleman, head of Higgs’ commercial property team said: “2010 has proved a busy year for our department with work from existing clients and new businesses. Philip will support the team and enable us to provide a service to even more businesses across the region and beyond.”
Monday, 22 March 2010
Landlords and agents urged to know the law to avoid costly litigation
One of the West Midlands’ leading property lawyers is urging landlords and agents to understand their legal responsibilities better to remain on the right side of the law and to avoid costly litigation.
Nyree Applegarth, a property litigation specialist at Higgs & Sons, says that a recent High Court decision on tenancy deposit schemes is providing some much needed clarification on the obligations of landlords.
“Since 6 April 2007, it has been a legal requirement that any deposit paid be placed in one of three Government approved Tenancy Deposit Schemes,” says Nyree. “This is the case for all shorthold tenancies except if the rent exceeds £25,000 per annum.
“All competent letting agents should know the procedure inside out, as too should landlords who are managing properties without help from an agent. However, the legislation presents a plethora of potential traps for someone less well versed in the vagaries of the Housing Act 2004.”
There have been many cases involving the interpretation of the Act but the recent decision in Draycott v Hannells Lettings Ltd provides a sound indication of how the Court will deal with tenancy deposit issues.
Nyree said: “The dispute in the Draycott case arose because the letting agents had taken a deposit from a tenant, but failed to lodge it with one of the approved schemes, within 14 days of receipt. The deposit was registered with the Deposit Protection Scheme but not for some two and a half months after it was paid.
“The tenant therefore issued proceedings claiming that the letting agents were in breach of the requirement to lodge the deposit within 14 days and sought compensation equal to three times the amount of the deposit. The agents sought to defend the claim on the basis that any proceedings had to be brought against the landlord, not the agents, and that the claim had no merit, since by the time the proceedings had been issued, the deposit had been properly protected.”
In the first case the judge dismissed both arguments and ordered that compensation be paid to the tenant. However in an appeal at the High Court, it was decided that the judge had been too harsh on the agents.
Nyree said: “Landlords and agents needs to act fast, as where deposits are not registered until after proceedings had been started, there is nothing in this decision to prevent another judge from wielding the full force of the legislation as occurred in the Da Costa v Pinter case in April 2009.
“Here the tenancy agreement provided for a monthly rent of £1,950 but also stated 'Payment required in advance of £4,200'. The agents’ invoice described £2,250 of this sum as a deposit, and at the end of the tenancy the tenants asked for it back. As it was not forthcoming they issued county court proceedings for its return and also claimed the fine of three times the deposit sum. The deposit was then protected, after the issue of proceedings. The Judge accepted that the sum paid was a deposit and awarded the claimants the deposit money and the fine of £6,750.”
Nyree Applegarth, a property litigation specialist at Higgs & Sons, says that a recent High Court decision on tenancy deposit schemes is providing some much needed clarification on the obligations of landlords.
“Since 6 April 2007, it has been a legal requirement that any deposit paid be placed in one of three Government approved Tenancy Deposit Schemes,” says Nyree. “This is the case for all shorthold tenancies except if the rent exceeds £25,000 per annum.
“All competent letting agents should know the procedure inside out, as too should landlords who are managing properties without help from an agent. However, the legislation presents a plethora of potential traps for someone less well versed in the vagaries of the Housing Act 2004.”
There have been many cases involving the interpretation of the Act but the recent decision in Draycott v Hannells Lettings Ltd provides a sound indication of how the Court will deal with tenancy deposit issues.
Nyree said: “The dispute in the Draycott case arose because the letting agents had taken a deposit from a tenant, but failed to lodge it with one of the approved schemes, within 14 days of receipt. The deposit was registered with the Deposit Protection Scheme but not for some two and a half months after it was paid.
“The tenant therefore issued proceedings claiming that the letting agents were in breach of the requirement to lodge the deposit within 14 days and sought compensation equal to three times the amount of the deposit. The agents sought to defend the claim on the basis that any proceedings had to be brought against the landlord, not the agents, and that the claim had no merit, since by the time the proceedings had been issued, the deposit had been properly protected.”
In the first case the judge dismissed both arguments and ordered that compensation be paid to the tenant. However in an appeal at the High Court, it was decided that the judge had been too harsh on the agents.
Nyree said: “Landlords and agents needs to act fast, as where deposits are not registered until after proceedings had been started, there is nothing in this decision to prevent another judge from wielding the full force of the legislation as occurred in the Da Costa v Pinter case in April 2009.
“Here the tenancy agreement provided for a monthly rent of £1,950 but also stated 'Payment required in advance of £4,200'. The agents’ invoice described £2,250 of this sum as a deposit, and at the end of the tenancy the tenants asked for it back. As it was not forthcoming they issued county court proceedings for its return and also claimed the fine of three times the deposit sum. The deposit was then protected, after the issue of proceedings. The Judge accepted that the sum paid was a deposit and awarded the claimants the deposit money and the fine of £6,750.”
There have been suggestions, following on from the Harvey v Bamforth case, that a landlord is 'safe' so long as he protects the deposit before any court hearing. This is still likely to hold true, but in line with decision in the Draycott case, the Court is also willing to look at the requirements of each scheme, before concluding that the sanctions of section 214 of the Act automatically apply.
Nyree concludes: “All three of these cases tell landlords and agents one thing – whatever the outcome of court cases, it’s better to stay on the right side of the law to avoid costly litigation in what is a complex area of law.”
Higgs & Sons is headquartered at prestigious new offices in Brierley Hill’s Waterfront where 170 of its 180-strong team are based. The firm has recently been nominated for Best Law Firm (16 partners and over) in the Birmingham Law Society Awards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)