Anthony Wilson

Registered with Property118.com
Thursday 13th March 2014


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 34

Anthony Wilson

21:32 PM, 8th June 2016
About 3 years ago

COURT OF APPEAL UPDATE - West Brom Tracker

it has been an incredible journey but an amazing result.. well done Mark and everyone in your team for finally ensuring that justice was done and that lenders will need to be very careful now about relying to any general small print which in practice contradicts the specific terms agreed.. Common sense rules eventually sometimes at least.. ..I remember an anecdote I heard once.. barrister in the court of appeal in an opening address begins.. " a contract is made when there is offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to enter legal relations..." The judge stops her to say.." I think we can assume in a court of law that we know the principles of a basic contract... " she replies.. "I made that mistake once your honour.. I am not going to do it again !!".... Read More

Anthony Wilson

9:37 AM, 20th May 2016
About 3 years ago

COURT OF APPEAL UPDATE - West Brom Tracker

Thanks Mark

I would have liked to have been there.. no doubt I will be able to read the judgement in due course so fingers crossed.... Read More

Anthony Wilson

18:25 PM, 17th May 2016
About 3 years ago

COURT OF APPEAL UPDATE - West Brom Tracker

Furthermore it is a disappointment that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to control mortgage lending because S.71 contains an obligation for the court to consider whether a term is fair if it creates a significant imbalance between the parties even if it has never been raised by any of the parties as an issue.

It seems to me that one day there will be a duty of fairness implied into every mortgage contract to protect uninformed property owners against losing their equity unbeknowingly to unscrupulous lenders. I come across victims of this type of behaviour regularly.... Read More

Anthony Wilson

18:14 PM, 17th May 2016
About 3 years ago

COURT OF APPEAL UPDATE - West Brom Tracker

Good evening all. I note from the Lexis Nexis report that Malcolm Waters QC makes a very important point that Mark Alexander was not a consumer and therefore issues of fairness do not apply to the appeal which was simply based on contract. I have read quite a few of the comments from those who were at the appeal hearing and unfortunately in my experience the incredulity or otherwise of a judge in any hearing listening or questioning evidence is not necessarily an indication that we will achieve the right result.

One aspect that may be worthy of consideration however is . if the appeal court does not find in Mark's favour.. is it worth (and do we have time ... presumably yes because this is an ongoing change) another bite at the cherry on the basis that (as Malcolm Waters pointed out) it was a dangerous assumption to make that the borrowers were not consumers simply because they had three or more buy to let properties. Interestingly this months edition of the practical lawyer talks about implied "good faith " clauses. It states that courts are not likely to imply a duty of good faith into a contract negotiated by experienced parties but there are two specific exceptions... where one is automatically implied.. employment contracts and and contract of a fiduciary nature (in addition to those which are imposed by statute). Food for thought?... Read More

Anthony Wilson

17:19 PM, 12th April 2016
About 3 years ago

New SDLT Rules when partner does not own a property?

Luther

See this site and see below...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties/higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties

I have read the sdlt guidelines in detail in the guidance note dated 16th March 2016 which has in Chapter 8 34 Q and A s about various situations..

I am sure Sunny is wrong because if you are not selling a home it falls within the example in Q2 and the higher rate is payable.

Q7 explains that if your share of existing property is less than £40,000.00 then the higher rates will not apply..(but it does not explain how any mortgage is dealt with).

Q27 The reply implies that trustees of a bare trust are not liable for the additional SDLT if they purchase for themselves.. therefore if you are simply a trustee for property which is beneficially owned for your parents and you have not enjoyed any personal benefit from it and will not do so then you should not pay the higher rate on the purchase of your new home. To make sure you could do a declaration of trust with your parents confirming that you have no beneficial interest in the other properties.. but as Patrick and Grahame point out.. there may be other implications eg increased inheritance tax if it applies if you inherit the properties! Hope this helps.... Read More