Tax Trouble Medicine

Oh dear, you didn't get your tax return on time, did you? And your friends at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have started to talk about penalties and more penalties and more, more penalties and you haven't got the cash to pay the tax you should have paid by 31 January 2018. Don't stick your head in the sand. Go to http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/tax%20penalties  It might just help you.

If you decide to appeal against the imposition of a tax penalty or assessment then now you can do it online so that it's just as pleasurable as buying from Amazon or cursing the Revenue on Facebook.  Go to https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appeal-your-tax-bill-online immediately after you have finished your egg and chips this evening. And almost as exciting, from this Spring a trial begins of video hearings of appeals to the tax tribunal. You may have the opportunity to participate in your appeal from the comfort of your kitchen or the table by the from door of your local Cafe Nero. Do remember, though, to dress with relative smartness - nothing too expensive or they may think you can pay the penalties yesterday - and don't hit your head on the web cam when you bow to the judge.

Power of Attorney Registration: Money Back!

You could be in the money. Well, a little bit of money.

The fee for registration of a power of attorney was reduced on 1 April 2017 by £28 to £82 

(see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/powers%20of%20attorney). The fee should have been reduced earlier as the cost of dealing with the registration process diminished and this was not reflected in the fee which was being charged before the reduction. The result is that if you paid a fee between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2017 which is the period over which an excessive fee was being charged, you will qualify for a refund. 

You can apply online - visit https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney-refund and enjoy yourself. Or,if you fancy a natter before Loose Women comes on, call 0300 456 0300 and select option 6 but I fancy there will be a call charge.

No Pets In Flat Legal Challenge; the Fate of Vinnie

No pets 'ere, thank you very much ! It's not uncommon to see this in a lease or tenancy agreement.  If you agree to it and the lessor or landlord hasn't gone on to say that you can ask for consent which won't be unreasonably withheld, then you are stuck with the prohibition. 

Say the lessor or landlord has in fact agreed not to unreasonably withheld consent. Then they cannot act unreasonably. Saying 'no' to a herd of elephants in a two bedroomed flat would probably be more than reasonable. 

The buyers of a flat in London's Limehouse were faced with a prohibition in the long lease they acquired in these terms:

No dog bird cat or other animal or reptile shall be kept...without the written consent...

Nothing about not unreasonably withholding it. That consent was needed from the development owners plus the management company. The buyers wanted consent for their young Yorkshire/Maltese terror Vinnie to live in the flat.  The owners gave consent but not the management company. When Vinnie was installed the management company obtained a county court injunction compelling the buyers to remove the dog. The injunction was challenged by the buyers in the High Court which gave its judgment this week. 

The majority of lessees in the development were against pets being kept there. And so the management company's policy was to refuse consent unless there were special reasons such as a guide dog being needed to live in. In this case, the buyers had said that they wanted Vinnie in their flat because the dog was part of the family and there were therapeutic reasons too for Vinnie's presence which would be supported by a medical report. Alas, that medical report never came. 

A challenge to a 'no' decision where consent like this is needed can normally be mounted on the grounds that the refusal was effectively decided in advance or, to put it more dryly in lawyer-speak, on the grounds that the refusal was an illegitimate predetermination to reach a particular decision (and put that in your letter to your negative management company and tell them to insert it into their pipe and smoke it) and also that it was unreasonable or irrational. 

But the High Court was having none of it. It ruled that it was implied that the management company would operate a reasonable process in deciding consent requests:  but no more and no less. In considering requests, it had been quite reasonable to take account of a policy as set by a majority of the lessees that dogs would not be permitted unless there were special circumstances. That did not amount to an illegitimate predetermination.

The challenge failed and Vinnie must go.

The case is Victory Place Management Co Ltd v Kuehn and another [2018] EWHC 132 (CH).

Business Rates Major Victory

Owners of empty business premises rejoice. The Court of Appeal has just provided them with a possible escape route from being condemned to pay punitive rates (after three months of emptiness) despite the fact that they are not receiving a bean by way of rent. The case is Telereal Trillium v Keven Hewitt (Valuation Officer) [2018] EWCA Civ 26 in which judgment was given last Friday.

The case was about a three-storey office block in Blackpool. Although empty, it was given a rateable value of £490,000. The valuation officer had sought to follow the valuation hypothesis set by statute by adopting the estimated rent for which the building could be let on a yearly tenancy. The valuation tribunal to which the owners appealed was unimpressed and valued at £1! But it was later agreed by the valuation officer that nobody would have been prepared to occupy the building and pay a positive price. ‘So what?’ was the valuation officer’s retort to the Court of Appeal. The rating hypotheses requires the valuer to assume demand that does not in reality exist and what did exist was a general demand because other comparable office properties had been let.

The Court of Appeal held that in the absence of any actual demand, there was no principle of law which required such a demand to be assumed. The evidence was that the relevant market was saturated. However, every case will turn on its own facts and any owner intending to rely on this decision will need to show that there is no general demand in the area for premises such as theirs. Extensive efforts by them to find an occupier - if only a 'pop up' selling plastic cups for a few weeks - would be useful.

The rulings could encourage more appeals to valuation tribunals or higher tribunals and some applications for an extension of the appeal time limit.

STOP PRESS 
This decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court on 15 May 2019 by a majority of three to two (see [2019] UKSC 23). But the argument raised by the tenant may not be dead for ever where the facts support it. 

Court Closures: latest potential victims

Plans have just been announced to close the county court at Wandsworth, the crown court at Blackfriars and the magistrates’ courts at Banbury, Maidenhead, Cambridge, Chorley, Fleetwood and Northallerton. Consultation on the plans has opened. Objections to HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Sneezing Revisited

It's not that I am hard up for material to blog about. It's that people are sneezing - and coughing - all over the place and there's a lot of flu about, isn't there? We should all arm ourselves with a handkerchief when we step out of the front door (if not before) - and use it! I am reproducing below an earlier post of mine as an encouragement to being responsible.

Assault By Sneezing

This is the silly season, alright. And this topic may sound silly. But I'm serious 'cos I am fed up to the teeth with being sneezed at wherever I go. We should all keep our germs to ourselves. And if we don't? Well, let's see.

An assault and battery are known to the civil law as a trespass to the person. If an unprotected sneeze is directed into your face then I regard that as such a trespass. It's probably also the tort of negligence. It could be either or both when, though not directly aimed at you, the sneezer is aware of your presence and the sneeze is emitted so close to you that they should have foreseen that you might catch something from them.

Proving that it was a result of the sneeze that you were struck down could be the obstacle to a successful civil claim for damages. You would have to prove that it was more probable than not that the sneeze was the cause of your illness. Physical closeness, the absence of prior symptoms, the velocity of the sneeze and the stage at which the symptoms began to manifest themselves will be among the major factors for consideration. The further away from you was the sneezer, the weaker your case.

A good sneeze can certainly travel at 60 to 80 miles per hour for up to 20 metres but research published in 2015 suggested that droplets from sneezes - and coughs - may travel 200 times further than had been thought. The incubation period for whatever is to follow the sneeze is around 24 to 48 hours.

Of course, you cannot make a civil claim unless you know the identity of the sneezer. Don't attempt a private arrest. For more on overcoming this obstacle and draft particulars of claim for a sneezing claim for damages, see my book Breaking Law. No warranty is given that you will succeed but let's hope someone does..... soon.

New Court Forms In Family Cases

Beware. Certain court forms are being amended for family cases on 8 January 2018 although the current forms will still be accepted by the court during a short period of grace which ends four days later. The affected forms are the C100 (application for an order under the Children Act 1989),  A (notice of application for a financial order), A1 (notice of application for a financial remedy), B (notice of application for the court to consider the respondent's financial position after divorce or dissolution) and FM1 (family information and assessment form). The forms will be accessible on the Internet at https://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/FormFinder.do

The changes reflect the revisions to legal aid making it easier for the victims of domestic violence to obtain legal aid in family cases as from 8 January 2018 (see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/legal%20aid) and what will be consequential changes to the scheme requiring mediation information to be obtained by certain applicants before starting family proceedings.