How do we cancel &quot;Tenants In Common&quot; without using a solicitor and what are the fees? My wife and I own a leasehold property as Tenants in Common; I've checked and our Land Registry title register indicates this in &quot;section B: Proprietorship Register&quot; RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court. We wish to revoke this and become Joint Tenants and I have been pointed towards government form RX3 however this states: Use this form to cancel a restriction if you are not the beneficiary. If you wish to cancel a joint proprietor (Form A) restriction, you can use form ST5 to provide the necessary evidence to cancel the restriction but you still need to complete form RX3 as well. I don't know what a &quot;Form A&quot; restriction is and I thought my wife and I were the beneficiaries. Instructions also say to &quot;include the correct fee&quot; but the fee list page does not make it clear to me which category this is in. There's even a handy fee calculator but again, I can't see which is the right option. I know from dealing with HMRC that if things aren't perfectly right I am likely to just get it back without much explanation. Solicitor's quotes for this work are coming in at several hundred pounds and it seems like this should be something we can do directly. Can anyone clear up the process and my confusion?
The gov.uk website has a page devoted to this specific matter. With reference to the issues mentioned in the question: It seems to imply that form RX3 may not be necessary: &quot;Download and fill in the form to cancel a restriction, if one has been registered.&quot; Regarding the cost: &quot;Send the form and documents to HM Land Registry’s Citizen Centre. There’s no fee.&quot; As the website makes clear, even without form RX3, there are still a number of other documents that must be submitted. It also states that you can apply yourself, or use the services of a legal professional.
The brother is under no obligation to buy, the sister is under no obligation to sell. As co-owners they each enjoy the right to use the property; that the sister chooses not to does not change the brother's right. If the property is owned as tenants in common (the most likely arrangement), the sister can sell or lease her share to whoever she likes without the brother's consent. She could even extend an invitation to an outlaw motor cycle gang to be house guests. If it is a joint tenancy, there is no sister's "share"; the siblings own the whole property as an indivisible whole. In that case both must agree to any dealings.
Your question is not particularly clear, but it sounds like you're describing a situation where: The tenant doesn't pay the rent The landlord files an action to evict the tenant, and The tenant files a request for a jury trial. The act of filing for a jury trial doesn't guarantee that the tenant won't be evicted, but it will likely make the eviction process more time-consuming and expensive for the landlord. I'm assuming the tenant is entitled to a jury trial--otherwise this would be useless as a stalling tactic. In that case, the question you really want answered is, can the landlord force the tenant to waive any right to a jury trial by contract, for example in the lease? In California, the answer is no. The linked document suggests that you may be able to specify some form of ADR, which would avoid the expense of a jury trial, but the California courts won't let you get away with a straight jury trial waiver.
The statute provides that "No lease or other rental agreement shall impose any interest or penalty for failure to pay rent until thirty days after such rent shall have been due." Mass. Gen. Law ch. 186 § 15B(1)(a)(iii). It would seem that if the rent is fully paid before the thirty days are up, there is no longer a "failure to pay rent" and so no late fee to be paid. I have searched and have found no caselaw providing a different interpretation of the issue, but I am not a lawyer and this, of course, is not legal advice.
Very simply, they aren't selling genuine titles. There are two limited exceptions: Note that there is considerable difference between Scottish and English law in this area. You cannot purchase a genuine British title, with one exception, the feudal title of a Scottish baron; and certainly cannot buy a peerage title. Scottish Feudal Baronies fetch a mighty price; the Barony of MacDonald was up for sale at over £1 million. Richard, 7th Earl of Bradford, at http://www.faketitles.com/ For Scottish feudal baronies, For centuries baronies conferred important commercial benefits and legal privileges, but they are now personal titles with no powers or responsibilities. Holders are able to sell, gift or bequeath them, as ‘incorporeal’ property separate from the ownership of land, and there is a small but active market for them. https://www.lindsays.co.uk/services/for-you-and-your-family/scottish-barony-titles We generally estimate legal fees between £2,000 -£3,000 for the acquisition of a barony and £3,000 -£4,000 for an earldom. The barony itself will cost in the region of £75,000 or more in the case ofalordship, earldomor marquisate. https://www.lindsays.co.uk/assets/downloads/Buying-a-Scottish-Barony-Title.pdf In England, it is possible you can purchase a Lordship of the Manor, which does not give you a title, but enables you to put after your name, Lord of the Manor of Lower Piddling-in-the-Trough or some such place. Richard, 7th Earl of Bradford, at http://www.faketitles.com/ When I acquire a barony title what will my name be? Let us assume that your name is John Smith and that you have acquired the Barony of Strathglen. You can then style yourself John Smith, Baron of Strathglen. But note, neither Baron Strathglen nor Baron Smith of Strathglen because both of these would indicate a peerage title and barony titles are feudal titles. https://baronytitles.com/frequently-asked-questions/
england-and-wales The household that doesn't pay its water bill cannot by law be cut off or restricted from the water supply. However, there have been reports that some companies have disconnected households anyway, claiming the premises were not occupied. In some circumstances the gas or electricity supplier may disconnect the domestic consumer that is not paying its bills. However, &quot;Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to avoid disconnecting an energy supply for debt. It should always be a last resort and avoided wherever possible&quot; (Ofgem, the regulator). The question asks for &quot;possible&quot; repercussions, not probable or usual. So here are some &quot;possible&quot; repercussions. The utility company may pursue the debt; first by mail, then via a debt collection agency and may ultimately seek court orders to resolve the matter one way or another. Generally, utility companies and the regulator Ofgem don't want things to get to court and will try to agree a repayment plan with the debtor and/or (in the case of electricity or gas) offer to install a prepayment meter. There are payment support options for households in financial difficulties but the question seems to be about outright refusals to pay. All creditors pursuing a debt are expected to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. This should be followed before a court order for a County Court Judgment for the debt can be made. Failure to follow the protocol does not invalidate the debt but can affect the court's decision. If the creditor wins a county court judgment (CCJ) against the debtor, the debtor will be obliged to pay the debt at a rate the court decides is appropriate. A CCJ is recorded on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. The Register is checked by companies to determine the credit-worthiness of applicants for credit cards, loans, mortgages, some bank accounts and rental agreements. If the debtor pays the full amount within one month of the CCJ, the record can be removed from the Register. If the debtor pays later, they can get the record marked as 'satisfied' - it will stay on the register for six years but searchers will see that the debtor paid the debt. If the debtor sticks to the payment plan the record can reflect this. Otherwise the record of the debt remains on the Register for six years. If the debtor still refuses to pay, the debtor may expect visits from bailiffs who will ask for payment and, failing that, the bailiffs might try to remove property to sell at auction to raise money to cover the debt and the bailiffs' costs. The creditor may seek an order for an attachment of earnings or an attachment of benefits / benefit deductions. In this case, the employer or benefits agency is ordered to divert money from the wages or benefits to the court that made the order, and the court sends the money to the creditor - the debtor doesn't receive that money. (The benefits attachment is likely more appropriate for non-payment of council tax.) The creditor may seek a third-party debt order, which orders the debtor's bank to freeze money in the debtor's account to the amount of the debt. The creditor may seek a charging order, which secures the debt against the debtor's property (e.g. their home if they own it). This can be followed up with an order for sale, which obliges the debtor to sell that property and the debt will be paid from the proceeds. The creditor could seek a court order that allows them to change the utility meter on the property to a prepayment meter. In this case the debtor has not been disconnected as such but they must pay (or get help to pay) in advance for their electricity or gas consumption. As noted earlier, the last resort is disconnection of the gas or electricity supply. In terms of criminal law, I don't know if any such debtors have been charged with illegal abstraction of electricity or gas but those seem like &quot;possible&quot; charges.
There are no squatters Neither Bob nor Sue are squatters: Bob was there with the owner's permission and Sue was there with Bob's. Adverse possession requires possession that is, well, adverse: against the wishes of the true owner. Bob was almost certainly a tenant, paying rent in services rather than cash. Clearly, the terms of that tenancy are unclear and may not be legal but that is more likely to rebound against the landlord rather than the tenant. So long as the rent (whatever it is) continues to be paid the estate’s tenancy should continue. However, the landlord could start procedures to end the tenancy (probably requiring 1 months notice) at any time.
Yes, you have to give 2 months notice and you have to pay £145 + VAT The first clause says your notice cannot end within 6 months of the start of the lease: that is long gone. You pay the lower fee because you will have stayed longer than 12 months by the time your 2 months notice expires. You can try to negotiate a shorter notice period - they have advantages in relenting if you move out earlier.