Legal costs in dealing with and fighting boundary disputes are notoriously out of line with the monetary value of the issues in dispute and the effect on neighbour relations and stress high. “Principles” take over and costs mount to £1000s before you know it.  The alternative  is for the parties to try to resolve matters by agreeing terms with eachother on the best terms possible for both parties. There might be no winner and no loser, but a solution which both parties can live with without incurring huge costs and without further souring relations.

Alternative dispute resolution can help at the outset once solicitors are involved. Parties coming together on site with a mediator and solicitors can often focus the parties’ minds on the reality of the situation. On site resolution seems the most sensible and cost effective method of dealing with such a dispute rather than lengthy correspondence, compliance with Court procedure, the associated costs and growing animosity.  A day long mediation will be money well spent  if not to resolve matters entirely then to at least narrow down the issues remaining in dispute.  If matters cannot be resolved at such a meeting, then the parties can decide whether or not they wish to litigate and proceed with litigation but should be fully aware of the potential costs liability they may incur. This is not to say neighbours who wish to fight a boundary dispute should not, nor does it trivialise the importance of issues relating to someone’s property. It can be a commercial approach to dealing with what is otherwise an expensive and emotionally exhausting experience.

Landlords of residential properties where the annual rent is more than £25,000 are not currently required to register a tenant’s deposit with a tenancy deposit scheme but they will  need to protect that deposit before 1 October 2010. Failure to do so will result in a Landlord falling foul of the requirement to protect a tenant’s deposit in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act 2004, leaving them open to a claim by a tenant for failing to register the deposit.

For tenants this change means greater protection as they will be afforded the rights granted to them under the Housing Act 1988. Landlords face potential claims against them for failing to register a tenant’s deposit. The change will of course impact Landlords with expensive properties in London where rents are higher than the rest of the country as well as Landlords of larger properties which are occupied by multiple tenants such as student houses where the rent is more likely to exceed the current threshold.

The changes will increase the number of tenancies coming within the Assured Shorthold Tenancy regime which will standardise procedures for Landlords to gain possession and allow use of the accelerated possession route (only open to Landlords of Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements).  Landlords who do not and who are required to register a tenant’s deposit will be unable to get possession of a property on a “no fault” basis until the deposit is registered, causing unnecessary delay.

Landlords – review rental levels register your deposits without delay.

Managing Agents – notify your Landlord clients immediately of the impact of this change and the steps they need to take.

We are already seeing cases in the County Courts regarding non-registration of deposits and no doubt Court offices across the country will see further cases next year arising out of these changes.

So what do you do? You raise your mortgage with any high street bank or building society through an independent legal adviser who is familiar with the scheme in your area (a list of appropriate advisers can be provided to you by your local MyChoice HomeBuy agent). Then, in addition to your mortgage, you will receive a government equity loan for up to 50% of the purchase price of the property. The scheme confirms that savings above £10,000 can be used to ‘top up’ your purchase price without affecting the equity loan provided by the government.

You are free to choose a home of your own choice on the open market provided the property you have selected is in a reasonable condition (you will need to instruct a homebuyer’s survey to ensure this is the case). If you are employed as a key worker, you must also ensure sure that you choose a property that is no more than 90 minutes travelling distance from your place of work.

MyChoice HomeBuy is for people who would not normally be able to buy their own home on the open market and is predominantly aimed at key workers and public-sector tenants. If you want to purchase a property with the assistance of the MyChoice HomeBuy scheme, you will need to meet the legal and other costs associated with buying a home. Your MyChoice HomeBuy agent will provide you with a list of recommended solicitors who are familiar with the scheme and the paperwork involved so you can be rest assured the transaction will progress smoothly.

Funding from the government for the scheme is usually available from April and is in huge demand, with many MyChoice HomeBuy agents accepting applications from January. So get the ball rolling and contact your local MyChoiceHomeBuy agent to see if you are eligible for the scheme.

The short answer, given by Arnold J in his judgment in Williams v Hull [2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch) is  “without prejudice to my position in any subsequent proceedings”.

The judge reached this conclusion in an application centered around the interpretation of a single letter sent by Mr Hull, a financial consultant, to his former cohabitant, Ms Williams, a solicitor, concerning the value and allocation of their jointly owned home and its contents, following the breakdown of their relationship.

Mr Hull had said that he thought he owned half of the property. Ms Williams contended he owned 7%, based on a draft Deed of  Co-ownership prepared, but never signed, when the property was purchased.

In his letter dated 19 October 2009 and headed “Without Prejudice” Mr Hull advanced arguments based on an assumption that he owned 12% of the property, not half. Not unnaturally, Ms Williams sought to tie Mr Hull to that concession. If the letter was validly headed “Without Prejudice” she could not, but if it wasn’t then she could.

Arnold J reviewed the established authorities and concluded that the “without prejudice” rule is founded on the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences. It is intended to enable parties in dispute to lay their cards on the table  and negotiate without fear that by so doing they will have compromised their legal position, if subsequently their issues are taken to a litigated conclusion.  Whether or not a particular document bears that heading or whether proceedings have been issued is not an essential requirement; it’s all a question of context and interpretation.

On his interpretaion of three letters passing betwen these parties, the second and third of which were headed “Without prejudice”, the label was properly applied, and was not a “cloak for perjury” or a mere assetion of rights as Ms Williams had contended; consequently, the content of the “Without prejudice” correspondence should not be referred to at trial. In reaching this conclusion he reversed the decision of HHJ Marshall QC, who first considered the point.

Whilst the decision has provided clarity for these parties, issues of context and interpretation continue to mean that for the label to be effective, thought has to be given to its use.  The case also underlines that in such circumstances it remains better to be safe than sorry – if you are buying property jointly, don’t just have a deed drafted, have it signed and dated too!

In addition to the developers own schemes, developers have joined forces with local housing associations by participating in schemes backed by the Government. Indeed, properties on residential developments participating in such schemes have been quick to sell.

Homebuy Direct is one such scheme that developers have been participating in and is open to households earning less than £60,000 who would otherwise be unable to purchase their own home. First time buyers, key workers and housing association or council tenants are examples of those eligible to take part in the scheme.

Under this Scheme, an equity loan is given to the buyer by a Homebuy agent (through public funding) and the developer. These loans represent a percentage of the value of the property and are secured as second and third legal charges against the property. The Buyer then obtains the balance of the purchase price from a conventional mortgage lender.

No fees or charges are payable during the first five years of the equity loan, so what is the catch?

When the property is sold, the owner will be liable to repay both equity loans and also the conventional mortgage. The amount to be repaid will depend on the percentage borrowed. Therefore, if the property has increased in value then the owner has to share that profit with the Homebuy agent and the developer. However, there is also a risk to the developer and Homebuy agent if the property has fallen in value, as they may make a loss on the amount loaned.

We have seen a number of developers keen to participate in this scheme. This would suggest to me that they have confidence in a recovery of house prices in the near future!