So maybe Scotland is not the only region wanting to be independent, maybe the North of England wants to breakaway too. Independence! Independence! Republic of Liverpool sounds good.
1 Like
They need to get in line!!
1 Like
Edit⊠Still fits, maybe even more atm. 
2 Likes
Iâve only briefly looked at this this morning but section 94 of the LRHUDA 1993 seems to suggest that their right to extend the lease (really enter into a new lease) is unaffected. That would seem contradictory to some of the grievances mentioned in the article though so it may well be that my interpretation isnât correct. @Barnestormer has expertise on property matters though so he may be able to shed some further light?
What I can say is that none of those with grievances in the article have had their position worsened by any (alleged) intervention by either the Queen or Prince Charles. What they ought to have known they were buying at the time that they bought it is still what theyâve got.
This isnât unusual though. Some times people donât fully understand what it is theyâre buying and some times the situation isnât properly explained to them. Things like this can keep solicitors like me pretty busy!
2 Likes
Great video from over two years ago. Anything more recent?
I read this, this morning - no idea how accurate it is but it seems extremely unlikely.
Also, of course rejoining the customs union and single market would resolve almost all of the issues currently being experienced around exports and imports but its the single market thatâs more important here than the CU.
I think mass resignations and dismantling of the Tory party would sort the rest
Iâm surprised that nobody appears to have mentioned the Siracusa Principles in response to this that I referenced last week. I note that at least one person referenced the Bill of Rights which is a useful starting point and, of course, the IHA.
It seems to me that the government can do this (Parliament is sovereign, after all!) but it needs to be extremely careful that it remains proportionate if itâs to avoid acting unconstitutionally or in breach of its international obligations.
1 Like
South West as well I have always been an advocate for a free âWESSEXâ. If it wasnât for all the grockles who come down to live there I reckon at least 10% of the population would be at the barracades for it. 
Iâd say so, if you look at West Wales and Scotland.
Quite possibly. Itâs all about the Sovereign/Sovereignty 
I always look at Devon, Exeter stands out like a sore thumb and Plymouth itâs a shame Totnes gets swamped by the rurality around it. Little beacons in the swamp often ignored but very important to me.
Its all dependent on the terms of the exiting lease, it is usual to allow the right to continue, subject to formal notices within stautory time limits, but not unheard of to expressly exclude ss. 21-24 of the 54 Act, so that no security of tenure is acquired in the lease from the outset.
Ah, youâre looking at it from the point of view of business tenancies though. These are residential leases weâre talking about.
Well thats because there is simply no right to remain for a residential tenancy; unless its a tenancy taken under the Rent Act 1977. Anything under the Housing Acts can be subject to Statutory Notice, which used to be 2 months. Its now 6 under Covid and there is a proposed bill seeking to enlarge the Notice periods to 6 months for all residential tenancies under the HA1984, but still no mention of security of tenure. It would upend the whole private housing economy, who would buy if you could rent for less for life, well fewer I suppose is true. I saw the point earlier, which I think, was about leasehold enfranchisement?
Yes, long leaseholds. So for long leases (more than 21 years save for some exceptions) youâre able to apply for a new Lease under either the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (for houses) or the LRHUDA 1993 (for flats). The LRA67 excludes crown land from this right (section 33) but then allows them to exercise it anyway. With regard to the LRHUDA 93, section 94 seems to state that the same right exists to a new/extended lease regardless of whether the freehold is owned by the Crown. However, it seems that this is on a voluntary basis so the right is not automatic.
Either way the main point of interest was whether the complainants have had their property interest damaged as a result of intervention by the Queen or Prince Charles and the answer appears to be no. What they bought at the time remains what they have now. Thereâs a potential argument that their properties are now of less value in comparison to other equivalent housing stock, however, whereas before there was no distinction but that change would have happened decades ago.
I have to go out but will pick up later.
Patel, again
2 Likes
If in the context of the Guardian story also, then yes you are right. But the story is drummed up anti-royalist leftism, and is particular with words and concepts to try and evoke a petit scandal; the Royals have an exemption on just about everything. The leaseholds mentioned are long residential leaseholds, usually at least 99 years as in the case of most flats also. They dont ever expire but are simply re-granted for the same terms on transfer of interest. At that, any âtenantâ is on notice of the interest they are taking; its not a hidden surprise like the story purports to imply. These interests are really the mid-point between freehold and leasehold, and residential and business. Almost as if a business residency interest. Could the Royals call them all in, yes on a period of notice, would this ever happen, no. The real issue is the retention of freehold ownership which is in this context actually conservative, in terms of preserving the premises from damage and redevelopment. Crucially also, the tenants would have been burdened with the repairing obligations for the premises. All in all, its a non story by leftists. Do I like the Royals, No. Biggest landholder in the UK, family worth over ÂŁ80b for what, waving at us. But really, nothing to see here.