In what sense is an Assured Tenancy “assured”? Why was this term chosen for the standard type of tenancy brought in under the housing act 1988? Who is the one that is meant to have the assurance, and what is the assurance thought to be of?
The assurance benefits both parties. The tenant cannot be evicted before the minimum term expires, if they have adhered to the terms of the agreement (with some rare exceptions). The landlord can gain possession under the terms of the agreement (subject to a minimum term). The Housing Act 1988 ended the &quot;sitting tenant&quot; trap for new lettings, where the landlord could not sell the house at market value. In practice, since 1997 most ATs are Assured Shorthold Tenancies with a 6-month fixed period which the agent renews. Though there are some ruthless agents who like to move tenants on so that they don't get too settled (and they can charge the landlord a re-letting fee). OTOH some landlords will want to keep a trouble-free tenant. Before 1988 tenancy laws were heavily skewed towards the tenant. Practically the only way a lawful tenant could be evicted, was if the owner needed to live in the property, and owned no other property (i.e. an owner of multiple lettings could not just shuffle around between them, to evict tenants). So although the new style tenancies were called &quot;Assured&quot;, basically new tenants lost their &quot;security of tenure&quot; and IMO this eventually created a huge inflation in domestic property value between 1995 and 2007, as residential property became a commodity which individuals were encouraged to invest in: the buy-to-let market.
I think the key word here is &quot;assume&quot;. A person, N, who is clearly the next of kin of a recently deceased person D may not assume that s/he is D's sole heir, or indeed is D's heir at all. N must wait until D's will (if any) is known, and an executor or administrator is lawfully appointed. Only the executor may lawfully dispose of D's property, by conveying it to specified beneficiaries, selling it, giving it away, or by any other means. Anyone who does so without the proper executor's authority is probably technically guilty of theft, although in a case like the one in the question, a prosecution would be very unlikely. But N would be liable to any heir H for the value of items properly left to H but disposed of by N. H might not choose to pursue such a claim, but would be legally able to. N should remember that the value, monetary or sentimental, of objects may not be known to N, and may be much greater to H than N is aware of. I suppose that in the case of objects of slight value which must be dealt with promptly, such as perishable food on D's premises, reasonable steps would not be objected to.
Building regulations You most likely do risk invalidating the insurance policy. Such indemnity policies typically have clauses to say that you mustn't carry out any action which alerts the local authority to the situation. The risk from the insurer's point of view is that if the local authority are alerted they may decide to take enforcement action against the earlier breach, and the insurer doesn't want to be liable in that scenario. You should check your policy wording to be certain. Enforcement limitation periods are as follows: Criminal fine for breach, 2 years from date of offence (Building Act 1984, s 35A(1)). Notice to carry out removal / alterations, 1 year from completion of works (Building Act 1984, s 36(4) Application to court to impose injunction for removal / alteration, no time limit (Building Act 1984, s 36(6) In practice local authorities rarely enforce breaches older than 1 year (presumably because of the increased risk/cost of going to court vs simply serving a notice), but of course you can't rely on this being the case. As an alternative to applying to the council, you can use a private building control company (an &quot;approved inspector&quot;) provided that you instruct them before you commence any works (they are not permitted to issue retrospective building control approvals). They are not going to care about the previous breach. The local authority will still be alerted to the fact of the new works but this is just a short notice sent by the approved inspector at the start and the end, and the local authority are far less likely to inspect (it has never happened in my experience). There are plenty of such companies; just google &quot;building control approved inspector&quot;. But in any case you may still risk (a) invaliding the insurance and (b) triggering enforcement action, it's just that the risks are lower. Party wall You probably will be required to submit a party wall notice. If you can gain the cooperation of your neighbour, it is not necessary to go through the formal process of reaching an agreement, and they can simply reply to your notice to say that they are happy for you to go ahead. If they are not willing to do so then it will become more complicated and you will probably need to appoint a party wall surveyor to reach an agreement. This will boil down to a bit of hassle and money, but isn't a big disaster otherwise. Be wary of party wall surveyors sending you marketing which makes it sound like you need to use them (quite common after you do something semi-public like apply for planning permission); always try to settle it with a written consent before you waste money. There are plenty of online resources and books which can guide you through the process. Planning permission Although you didn't ask about planning, you should be aware that pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 171B(1), you gain immunity from enforcement 4 years after completion of the works. You are also entitled to request a Lawful Development Certificate for Existing Use from the Local Authority to confirm the immunity, although it is not necessary to do so and it is perhaps not recommendable in this case as you might alert them to the building control issue and you would almost certainly invalidate your planning indemnity policy (albeit that would be less important than the building control policy).
I don't know where you looked, but the Housing Act 2004 on legislation.gov.uk is up to date according to its header: [the] Housing Act 2004 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 12 January 2023. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Sections 212 to 215 fall within Part 6, Chapter 4 of the Act. With hindsight, you may be looking at an earlier version. So for awareness, if the entry's header is: green, then it is up to date. Any provisional amendments (i.e. yet to be enacted) there might be can be found using the &quot;view outstanding changes&quot; drop down option if there is one. red, then there are changes yet to be made which can be found via the &quot;view outstanding changes&quot; drop down option. blue, it's either the original version that has not had any amendments, or it's an earlier version that can be navigated to/from by selecting the the tick box &quot;show timeline of changes&quot; and the sliding calendar above the header.
I cannot recall an example where a breach of such guidance in-and-of-itself is an offence: it's when the underlying legislation is contravened that one is committed. Note that the cited article say this: this guidance is of a general nature. Employers should consider the specific conditions of each individual place of work and comply with all applicable legislation and regulations, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This guidance does not supersede existing legislation or regulations across the UK More broadly, and away from the NHS, the relationship between guidance and statute was examined in The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd &amp; Ors [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) where adherence to social distancing measures impacted on safe working practices on building sites, causing delays and an increase in costs. The court determined that: It follows that government advice or recommendations, whether before or after either set of Regulations came into effect, cannot have imposed or ordered a denial of access or a hindrance in access, however strongly worded the advice or recommendations were, since they did not have the force of law.
Since this seems to have been viewed a lot, an update/answer. I can't comment on the normalcy of such clauses since this has been my only experience. But the Estate Agent immediately struck the clause without any fight, so it seems like it was just there &quot;in case I let it slide&quot;. It turned out to be a great decision, since I ended up finding my own buyer in the same week that the agent acquired a suitable offer, which I would then have been liable to pay the fees for.
The landlady is trying it on. The purpose of a deposit is to protect the landlord from being left out of pocket by: damage to the property rent arrears Reasonable wear and tear does not constitute damage. It seems unlikely that the stiff tap is as a result of damage. The hob is not so clear cut: the landlady could argue that it was damaged, albeit by accident, and the cost of repair taken from your deposit. If she insists that the only remedy is to replace the hob, she should make an appropriate deduction to reflect the fact that it is several years old and will be replaced by one that is new (thereby gaining her some value). It would be reasonable for you to expect to see the written report from the gas inspector who has condemned the whole hob in that case. But I find it hard to believe that: the plastic knob cannot be replaced doing so would make the hob unsafe, if the knob can be removed for cleaning it's my understanding that if the hob is indeed broken, I only have to pay what it was worth at the moment before it was broken. Your liability is to return her to the position she would have been in had the damage not occurred. If that means replacing a removable plastic part instead of the whole hob, that would be a reasonable remedy.
According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/blog/stamp-duty-for-first-time-buyers-your-questions-answered: To be classified as a first-time buyer you must never have owned a residential property in the UK or abroad. This includes freeholds and interests in leaseholds. Being a guarantor on a mortgage is not "owning a property", having your name on the deeds at the Land Registry is. However, your brother should get his own solicitor (the mortgage company may insist on this), who can confirm my understanding is correct. More importantly, the solicitor can explain the risks of being a guarantor to him - he may decide to back out. (Having said which, I acted as guarantor for my son when he rented as a student.)