Freehold Purchase – What is a house?

A recently decided case, Jewelcraft Ltd v Pressland [2015], has confirmed that a shop with accommodation above does not necessarily fall outside the definition of a house, just because it is described as a shop.

Section 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 defines a house in relation to a tenant’s right of enfranchisement. The section provides that a house ‘includes any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called, notwithstanding that the building is not structurally detached, or was or is not solely designed or adapted for living in’.

In Jewelcraft, the claimant was the tenant of a building comprising a ground floor purpose built shop with residential accommodation on the first floor above. Originally the shop was not self-contained and could be accessed from the flat above. The two floors were separated in the 1970’s.

The building was part of a parade of similar shops built in the 1920’s each with a 99 year lease running from 1921. The building had been sublet to a newsagent from 1978 on successive underleases, with the accommodation above occupied by its employee(s) under a service occupancy agreement.

The tenant’s claim to enfranchise under the Act was rejected by the County Court on the basis that the building did not constitute a house under section 2(1) of the Act. The judge stated that the building was not a house because it did not look like a house and was part of a parade of shops with residential accommodation above.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed with this approach on the basis that it was inconsistent with previous cases.  Further, in the Court’s view, the wording in section 2(1) of the Act clearly indicated that it was not Parliament’s intention to exclude the right of enfranchisement for buildings that were designed or adapted in part for non-residential use.

On a practical point, Jewelcraft demonstrates that corporate tenants may be able to use enfranchisement rights to acquire freeholds of premises which are partly used for business.

For advice on this, or any other residential leasehold matter,  please contact Robert Plant who heads up our team of leasehold experts 

Can your employer really read your private WhatsAPP messages?

If the news articles published this week are to be believed then it would appear we could all be in trouble as various newspapers have had the general public in fear that their employer can strip them of their personal mobile phone and scroll through all of the unsavoury message they’ve been receiving (but definitely not sending) in that WhatsAPP group chat they keep meaning to leave but never quite get round to in case they miss out on vital “banter”. 

The reality is, however, somewhat different. The scare mongering in the national press follows on from the decision last week handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Barbulescu v Romania.

The case concerned Mr Barbulescu, a Romanian worker who was dismissed by his employer for using a work-related Yahoo messaging account to send private messages of a personal nature to his friends and family. Mr Barbulescu was dismissed for personal internet use at work, contrary to his employers’ rules. In investigating the matter his employer accessed the private messages and used them in the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent court cases. The Romanian courts sided with Mr Barbulescu’s employer and the European Court of Human Rights held that the monitoring and use of personal messages was a proportionate interference with Mr Barbulescu’s Article 8 right to privacy. The court held that it was not unreasonable that an employer would want to verify that employees were completing their professional tasks during working hours.

It is important to note that the Yahoo messaging account in this case was a work related account set up to answer client queries and that this decision does not overrule previous decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor does it override existing UK legislation which places important limitations on employers’ powers to monitor their employees’ private communications, but why would the newspapers let such insignificant facts get in the way of a good story.

For further information on this or any other employment related matter contact Claire Rainbird, mailto:crainbird@tolhurstfisher.com

The Consumer Rights Act 2015

What will it do?

The new Consumer Rights Act 2015 regulates agreements between traders and consumers.

A trader is defined in the Act as a person acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession, this includes individuals such as professionals and sole traders.   A consumer is defined in the Act as an individual person acting for purposes which are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession.

The Act aims to protect consumer rights and provide the consumer with more remedies. Traders who do not adhere to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 could potentially leave themselves exposed to a claim by a consumer.

Why is it being introduced?

Much of the existing legislation is over 30 years old.  The aim of the Act is to update and clarify the law.

At the same time, online trading has come to the fore and there are more digital products.  The 2015 Act takes this into account and modernises the law.

When did it come into force?

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 1 October 2015.

If you are a trader and you want to update agreements with your consumers, for example contracts or terms and conditions, or if you want any further information regarding The Consumer Rights Act 2015 then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Attila Hunter,

Solicitor in the Corporate and Company Commercial department.