The Future of Property

Written by Freeths on 22/05/2017

Hot on the heels of our “Practical Property Guide” blog series is our new series “The Future of Property”.

We will be looking at how the property sector might be influenced by the latest technology and how this will impact on the way we work and transact in the years to come. “PropTech” (the adoption of hardware or software technologies to solve problems relating to property) is set to become one of the property sector’s buzzwords over the next few years as a wave of new property technologies wash over mainstream property transactions.
Evolution man - technology circles
PropTech has already grown into a multi-billion pound sector and created several household names (think Nest Labs and Airbnb) and is set to continue its rise to prominence in a property world that is often criticised for lagging behind in the adoption of new technologies.

The series will cover topics such as remote working, crowd funding, online transactions and the use of virtual and augmented reality and will look at some of the developments that are set to change the property landscape.

Whether or not businesses will survive and thrive in this brave new world will depend on their ability to adapt to these emerging technologies and we hope our new series will get you thinking about the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Sean Hallam
Real Estate Group

500 and Counting…

Written by Freeths on 17/05/2017

Our National Head of Real Estate, and current IPF Chairman, Darren Williamson kicked off the Annual IPF Midlands Lunch 2017 in Birmingham last Friday with a rousing introduction all about the IPF Midlands ‘Alternatives’ theme.

IMG_1043With over 500 guests in the room, and despite the current uncertainties around the UK general election, Brexit negotiations and the emergence of various new world leaders, the mood was broadly optimistic.

After dinner speaker Julia Hartley-Brewer got some cheers for her tales of a politician’s abruptness; and generally went down a storm. So much for “Have I Got News For You” Julia…

Darren Williamson H&S large
Darren Williamson
National Head of Real Estate
Real Estate Group…

Springing Forward

Written by Freeths on 28/04/2017

Happy New Year! Well, happy new financial year that is. Having announced the most successful financial performance (2016/17) in Freeths’ history, we’re now into the new financial year with a desire and commitment to further build on those achievements.Property Week

What better time to take stock, reflect and refresh? Among other initiatives, the new financial year signifies the commencement of our new advertising campaign in Property Week that demonstrates our innovative, fresh and interactive approach to service delivery.

In conjunction with Property Week, we are pleased to also announce the launch of our PropTech Survey - click here to take part. In our increasingly digital and connected world, it is undoubtedly going to be the case that technology will play a fundamental role in the delivery of real estate services across all professional disciplines. We are excited to see the results of our survey in due course.

We’re also at the end of our successful Practical Property Guide 2017 blog series. Many of you commented and interacted with us on our articles, and we hope you found them helpful and useful for your day-to-day real estate practice. In the coming week, I will be formally introducing our next series – The Future of Real Estate. Linking to our PropTech Survey, we’ll be looking at what the future holds for us all as real estate practitioners and professionals.

More on that soon, but in the meantime try to enjoy the Spring weather (!)…



Thomas Golding
Real Estate Group…

Deregulation – A Simpler Life?

Written by Freeths on 27/04/2017

As from 6 April this year, registered providers of affordable housing (“RPs”) are no longer required to obtain the Homes and Community Agency’s consent to disposals or mortgaging of housing stock. Less paperwork – hurrah!
Man & pile of paper, workload
For lawyers, it does indeed make life a lot simpler as we no longer need to worry about restrictions contained in section 172 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (amongst other requirements), but for RPs it is a different matter altogether.

The new system is one of notification. In most cases only quarterly reporting will be required rather than the previous transaction by transaction basis – but the guidance makes it clear that whilst RPs are now only expected to notify the HCA rather than seek consent, the HCA still expects RPs to act within the boundaries of the regulatory framework. In particular, where an RP is disposing of social housing, the HCA expects the following:

• To protect social housing from undue risk.

• To adhere to all relevant law and compliance with governing documents.

• To be accountable to tenants and carry out consultation with tenants when considering a disposal which would mean a change in the tenant’s landlord or changes that affect tenant’s statutory or contractual rights.

• To achieve value for money in how social housing is used.

As Fiona MacGregor, executive director of regulation at the Homes and Communities Agency, recently stated “this basically transfers quite a lot of the risk from [the HCA] to the sector. RPs have got to think carefully about what they are doing and whether it complies with their own rules, but at a much more strategic level about the long-term reputational risk”.

Only time will tell how well the new system will work.
Sarah Rowe H&S small
Sarah Rowe
Principal Property Manager
Real Estate Group…

Planning Permission: Drawing a line under Copyright Infringement

Written by Freeths on 24/04/2017

In a recent High Court case (Signature Realty Ltd v Fortis Development Ltd and Beaumont Morgan Developments Ltd) the court ruled that a property developer (Fortis) had infringed copyright in an architect’s drawings by using them without having commissioned the drawings and without having a licence to use them.


The Claimant (Signature) identified a site in Sheffield city centre suitable for development into a block of flats for student accommodation and engaged architects, Corstorphine & Wright (“C & W”) to prepare drawings for the site. Signature obtained planning permission based on C & W’s drawings, but were unable to complete the purchase and development of the site. The site was subsequently sold to Fortis who developed the site in accordance with C & W’s plans.Architect Diagram

Although Fortis did engage their own architects, a condition of the planning consent required the development to be carried out exactly as illustrated in C & W’s drawings. The drawings were owned by C & W and were published on the Sheffield Planning Portal with a copyright notice limiting their use.

After Fortis purchased the site, C & W assigned the copyright in the drawings to Signature to enable them to bring a claim against Fortis for infringement of copyright. Signature claimed that copyright in the drawings had been infringed in a number of ways, including the construction and development of the site.


The judge began by ruling that there are no statutory or intellectual property rights in a planning permission. The judge ruled that Fortis had infringed Signature’s copyright in the drawings on several grounds, including developing the building in accordance with the drawings. The judge made an order for an enquiry as to damages or an account of profits to be determined, but ruled against an order for additional damages. The level of award pursuant to such enquiry is still currently awaited.


This case is a warning to all developers of a potential issue which may arise when buying land which has already been granted planning permission. In order to avoid infringing copyright in an architect’s drawings it is essential to obtain a licence to use such drawings or obtain an appropriate assignment of copyright. If the appropriate licence or assignment cannot be obtained, then beware of potential copyright infringement…
James Woodcock 2015 H&S small (1)
James Woodcock
Trainee Solicitor
Real Estate Group…

Let your Light Shine Through

Written by Freeths on 10/04/2017

In a recent Court of Appeal case (Ottercroft Limited v Scandia Care Ltd and Dr Mehrdad Rahimain) the Court unanimously upheld an injunction to prevent a minor interference with a right of light, forcing the developer (Scandia) to alter, replace or remove a metal staircase it had erected as part of development works.

In 2011 Scandia undertook redevelopment works to its property without first consulting with its neighbour, Ottercroft, and without complying with the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. Ottercroft corresponded with Scandia and requested various undertakings in connection with the redevelopment works along with working drawings, neither of which were provided. Light Pic

Ottercroft made an application to the court seeking declarations about a claimed right to light, an injunction preventing Scandia and Mr Rahimain (Scandia’s director) from interfering with that right and other relief. In response, Mr Rahimain provided undertakings on his behalf and on behalf of Scandia which included an undertaking not to interfere with Ottercroft’s right to light.

Despite giving the undertakings, the redevelopment works continued and Scandia constructed a metal staircase which infringed Ottercroft’s right to light. At first instance the court ordered Scandia and Mr Rahimain to alter, replace or remove the staircase so that it ceased to interfere with Ottercroft’s right to light, even though the court accepted that the interference was only minor.

Scandia and Mr Rahimain appealed against the decision. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision to grant injunctive relief for the staircase to be taken down.

Lessons to be learnt:

1) After the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence, many expected that it would be more difficult to persuade a court to grant injunctive relief to prevent interference with rights of light and that monetary damages would be more readily awarded. The decision in the Ottercroft case means that this may not necessarily be so.

2) The conduct of the Defendants (which was described as being ‘high handed’ and ‘oppressive’) appears to have played a significant role in the decision of the court to grant injunctive relief, even though the court accepted that the interference with Ottercroft’s right to light was ‘minor’. It would therefore be prudent to consult with any adjoining landowners whose rights of light may be affected by any proposed developments rather than ploughing ahead and worrying about the consequences later.

This is a complex area of law and if you are planning to undertake development works which affect light to adjoining properties, you should seek specialist advice before commencing works so that your plans can go ahead come rain or shine…

Beth Jenkins H&S small
Beth Jenkins
Property Litigation Group…

Do actions speak louder than words?

Written by Freeths on 03/04/2017

Guardian schemes are an increasingly popular way for property owners to protect vacant premises against squatters and vandalism. Management companies arrange for individuals to live in such properties as licensees. However, the recent case of Camelot Property Management Limited and Camelot Guardian Management Limited v Roynon [2017] is a reminder that when it comes to determining the basis of someone’s occupation of property, the situation ‘on the ground’ is just as important as what the agreement between the parties actually says.


Bristol City Council own a disused former care home. They engaged the services of Camelot Property Management Limited, who placed ‘guardians’ in the property in order to secure it. One such guardian, Mr Roynon, occupied two specific rooms to which only he had access. He also had use of other facilities such as a communal kitchen and bathroom. Mr Roynon entered into a written agreement in January 2014 which stated that it created a licence and not a tenancy. However, when the management company served notice to quit upon Mr Roynon in May 2016, he refused to leave the property.


When determining whether an agreement is a tenancy or a licence, a Court will look beyond whatever label the parties have put on a document and take into account the reality of the occupation. As outlined in last week’s Practical Property Guide blog, a tenancy grants “exclusive possession” of a property for a specified period of time (being a right to use a property to the exclusion of others), whilst a licence is simply a permission to do something on someone else’s property.


The Court found that the provisions of the agreement did not reflect the reality of Mr Roynon’s occupation ‘on the ground’. Whilst the agreement provided that the guardians would not be given designated rooms, Mr Roynon had exclusive possession of two rooms to which the other guardians at the property did not have access and would not enter without his permission.

The agreement also prohibited overnight guests, limited the number of guests to two at any one time (and provided that they must not be left unsupervised) and stated that any guests must be escorted off the property at the end of each visit. The Court felt that whilst these restrictions were onerous, they only restricted the way in which Mr Roynon could use his rooms. Such restrictions are a common feature of tenancies and so do not by themselves prevent exclusive possession. The absence of any power to move Mr Roynon between rooms as and when the Council required, was considered to be a significant factor in indicating that there was a tenancy and not a licence. The Court found that these specific facts were sufficient to give Mr Roynon exclusive possession and that he had an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.


This case is a reminder that it is not simply enough to label a document a licence if the reality of the situation is something different. The consequences for failing to recognise when an agreement is a tenancy can result in a landlord having to terminate such agreement in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures.

Guardian providers may need to embrace the likelihood that their existing arrangements constitute ASTs and adapt their procedures accordingly. Landowners should be sure that documents are carefully drafted and arrangements put into place to ensure that any attempts to keep trespassers out do not result in letting unwanted tenants in.

So don’t be caught off guard by letting your guard down…

Ben Gant
Real Estate Group…

Practical Property Guide 2017: Navigating the road to recovery (of possession)

Written by Freeths on 27/03/2017

In the final instalment of our Practical Property Guide series, we look at the difficulties that can arise where an owner of commercial property allows someone into occupation of their property, without documenting such occupation adequately.Curved asphalt road

This is a common occurrence in practice and often happens when:

  • a landlord does not want to incur the time and cost of negotiating a new lease; or
  • an occupier is allowed into a property before the terms of the proposed occupation have been finalised; or
  • the parties have not considered the actual nature of occupation.

Whatever the reason, this can cause issues for both parties, particularly when a landlord wishes to recover possession of a property.

What legal interest has been created?

The most common interests that can arise are:

  • A licence to occupy. This does not create an ‘estate in land’ and the occupier does not enjoy exclusive possession. This merely creates a personal right which can be revoked by the Landlord and the occupation brought to an end.
  • A tenancy at will. This does grant exclusive possession to the occupier and can be revoked by either party at any time. Tenancies at will are often used where a person is allowed into occupation of a property whilst a new lease is being negotiated (or where a person remains in occupation at the end of a lease, again whilst a new agreement is negotiated).
  • A periodic tenancy. This can be created by express agreement and can also arise by implication where there is deemed to be a landlord and tenant relationship due to the fact the tenant has exclusive possession and is paying rent. The period of the tenancy is based on how often the rent is paid (if the rent is paid weekly there will be a weekly periodic tenancy and if paid monthly there will be a monthly periodic tenancy etc).

Unlike with a licence or a tenancy at will, a landlord cannot simply terminate a periodic tenancy and obtain vacant possession. It must serve a notice which must be at least equal to the period of the tenancy and expire at the end of the relevant period (i.e. with a monthly periodic tenancy, the landlord must give one month’s notice expiring on the last day of the period).

However, with a periodic tenancy it is not possible to contract out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“the Act”) and so if a property is occupied for business purposes, the occupier will automatically gain the protection of the Act after 6 months of occupation. This means the landlord is faced with a secure business tenancy. It can therefore be very difficult for a landlord to obtain vacant possession where a periodic tenant does not want to leave a property.

Which document to use?

The absence of the correct documentation can lead to unintended relationships being created. Where the parties intend occupation to be brief (under 6 months) the best course of action is to enter into either a licence to occupy or a tenancy at will, as both can be brought to an end immediately. Where occupation is to be for a longer period then a lease that has been contracted out of the Act should be entered into at the outset. This would allow the landlord to have control over the way in which the property is used and the date on which it is to be returned.

In particular, if an owner does not want an occupier to obtain security of tenure under the Act, it should ensure that the occupier occupies by way of a licence, a tenancy at will or a ‘contracted out’ lease.

And if in doubt, document, document, document!
Claire Lees H&S (1)small
Claire Lees
Trainee Legal Executive
Real Estate Group…

“They’re back…” Is possession really 9/10′s of the Law?

Written by Freeths on 22/03/2017

As a property litigator, when you get a message from a client you are not expecting to hear from asking you to call urgently at 7.30am on a Friday morning, you know that your day is not going to go the way you thought it was.  “They’re back” was the message.
Our client had bought a 3.5ha site for development and in May last year, before putting a spade in the ground, a number of trespassers got onto the land and began fly tipping waste on it. It appeared that these individuals were collecting rubbish from people for a price and then dumping it on our client’s site. Our client asked the Police to get involved but they declined to do so.

We urgently commenced Court proceedings seeking an order for possession in the County Court.  By the time the order was granted and the trespassers left, they had dumped over 1000 tonnes of rubbish on the site which cost the client circa £150,000 to clear.  The photos show the state the trespassers left the site in.IMG_2440

Fast forward to last Friday morning.  When our client told me “they’re back“, this of course referred to the return of the trespassers to the site.  Our client had previously secured the site with locked gates and erected concrete blocks to prevent access but the trespassers simply cut through the locks and broke through the concrete blockade and had begun dumping waste on the site.  Once again, the Police declined to act and directed our client to obtaining an order for possession in Court.

In view of the urgency of the situation, we decided to make an application for permission to issue a claim for possession in the High Court and shorten the time for the service of the claim. We wrote a letter advising the trespassers of what we were doing and asked them to attend the High Court in London at 2pm that afternoon.  We then quickly prepared all the paperwork and arranged for Counsel to go to Court.  Whilst the Judge took some persuading, he agreed that in view of the history of fly tipping and the potential for further damage to the site, it was appropriate for the claim to be issued in the High Court and for the time for service to be shortened. A key factor in this was that the trespassers had been given notice of our application. The Judge ordered that the trespassers give up possession immediately, that the claim documents be served at the same time as the order for possession and issued a writ authorising High Court Enforcement Officers to remove the trespassers from the site.

By 7pm on Friday evening, all of the trespassers had been removed and the site made secure. All in all, a fantastic turnaround for our client given the potential nightmare of having the trespassers on site dumping waste whilst the matter made its way through the County Court system.

So what lessons can be learnt from this?

1.  The vast majority of trespass cases still must be issued in the County Court.  This process can take a number of weeks for a trespass order to be granted and in the intervening period, the trespassers can cause extensive damage to the property they occupy without any real recourse for the owners on the basis the trespassers are “Persons Unknown“.  The Police rarely get involved leaving the site owner with potentially huge clean-up costs whilst the trespassers walk away scot- free. The law desperately needs reforming so that the cards are not stacked so much in the trespassers’ favour.

2.  The High Court issued a guidance note in September 2016 as to the types of trespass cases it considers would be appropriate for issue in the High Court.  One of the specific circumstances referred to is fly tipping of waste so if you can prove there is a real danger of extensive fly tipping by trespassers, it may well be possible to issue in the High Court. However, the Court will need persuading the matter is sufficiently serious to merit issue in the High Court.

3.  By moving quickly great results can be achieved.  Here this was possible due a collective team effort between our client, the High Court Enforcement Officers (Constant & Co), Counsel (Jamal Demachkie of Harwicke Chambers) and ourselves.
Paul Tomkins
Paul Tomkins
Property Litigation…

Hope Living

Written by Freeths on 21/03/2017

On Friday I attended the launch of Hope Living, and assisted with a presentation by Phil Woolas and Jason Highet at the Conservative Party Spring Conference at the SSE Swalec stadium, Cardiff.Hope Living

‘Hope’ is an initiative to relieve ‘bed-blocking’ by making available accommodation on a long term basis to Local Authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) at a rental linked to Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, the rent for which is met by Housing Benefit. The way in which the private funding is made available makes it possible for £15,000 to be applied to refurbish each unit of accommodation. Tenants are nominated by the Authority, who are then granted an assured shorthold tenancy.

The Mirror online reported on this over the weekend but please also see Hope Living’s website for further information on the initiative.
Matthew Grocock
Matthew Grocock
Real Estate Group…