Author: Chris Alexander

You may have heard me this morning on the Jonathan Vernon-Smith show on BBC Three Counties Radio discussing the implications of long-term solar energy contracts when it comes to selling your property.

There are a number of companies in the marketplace currently offering free installation of solar panels in exchange for contracts of up to twenty-five years which entitle the householder to benefit from the electricity generated and allows the installer to sell surplus energy back to the Grid. I was asked to comment upon the implications for householders proposing to sell where these agreements are in place.

The first observation I would make is that each company’s terms and conditions will be different. However, remember that by signing up to them, you are entering into a long-term contract with obligations you will need to perform for the entire duration. It is therefore essential to check the termination provisions in the contract (if any), to see what should happen in the event that you no longer wish to continue. I consider it is going to be unlikely to be easy to terminate the contract because of the capital investment made by the solar panel company.

The contract provides you with personal obligations to the solar panel company and these cannot generally be assigned to a buyer of your house without the solar panel company being a party to that arrangement. Therefore, if your buyer was prepared to continue with the contract, a novation agreement would be needed to transfer the obligations to the buyer and to release you from the contract. If you failed to procure the agreement of your buyer to step into your shoes and went on to breach your obligations to the solar panel provider, then I could envisage a hefty damages claim being brought by the solar panel company based on their losses for the remaining term of the contract.

However, in practice I would expect that this is unlikely to be an insurmountable problem, but will add to the complexity and cost of a sale transaction. Further, it may limit the type of buyer who would like to purchase your property.

Other Legal Issues to Consider

Before entering into one of these contracts you should consider whether or not planning or other permission is required for the development to your roof or wall. The government’s planning portal website provides some useful guidance on this. Also check that the terms of the contract are not granting any specific rights over your property to the solar panel company. These could require registration of the Land Registry and, also, could require the consent of your mortgagee to put in place.

Follow Chris on Twitter: @Alexander_CJ http://twitter.com/#!/Alexander_CJ

Contact Us

For further information about our Litigation and Dispute Resolution services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Chris Alexander at our St Albans office by email at chris.alexander@salaw.com or on 01727 798042.

© SA LAW 2011

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

The short answer to this question is no.

Grandparents can find it very difficult when their son or daughter separates from their spouse or partner and in some cases this can lead to a significant loss of contact with their grandchildren.

It is possible for grandparents to apply the Court for a Contact Order. However, there is an additional requirements, over and above the requirements for a parent. Grandparents have to obtain permission from the Court first to make the application. The thinking behind this is for the Court to rule out applications that have little chance of success.

However, grandparents should not be discouraged by this. The Norgrove report has found there is no indication from Court outcomes that it is particularly difficult for grandparents to obtain the Court’s permission to proceed.

Click here to read the full article

Author: Chris Cook

SA Law’s cricket team have enjoyed a mixed season this year, with 2 solid victories against Rayner Essex and Brasier Freeth followed by disappointing defeats against Kingston Smith and Hillier Hopkins.  Debutants this year (in no particular order) included Rik Patel, Hayley Masson and Ben Ashworth, all of whom made valuable contributions to the team.  Keith Docking made a belated return to the team after a six year absence, exhibiting some smart fielding in spite of a disappointing performance with the bat.

Author: Julie Gingell

You may have seen in the press recently that The Original Bucks Fizz (which includes three of the original band members (Cheryl Baker, Mike Nolan and Jay Aston) and Bobby G -real name Robert Guppy, who performed in the group called Bucks Fizz, are currently involved in a trademark dispute. Guppy owns the trademark Bucks Fizz having registered it in 2001.

The hearing was triggered when Baker, Nolan and Aston tried to trademark their band name “The Original Bucks Fizz” and former band mate Guppy objected. This led to a counter objection from The Original Bucks Fizz over Guppy’s use of the “Bucks Fizz” name, stating that Guppy’s band had caused confusion and disappointment among fans. Guppy felt he could claim that his band was the original because he had a direct connection to the group that won the 1981 Eurovision Song Contest. He also argued that bands often change their line-up giving examples of The Drifters and The Supremes.

So, what are the lessons for businesses in this squabble between former band mates?

1. Make sure you identify and protect your intellectual property assets.
2. Before you register your trademark check the trademark register to make sure that you are not in breach of an already existing trademark.
3. Ensure that when you register a trademark the correct party/person is named as the owner of the intellectual property.

The Intellectual Property Office are due to give their decision by August 26th.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact our team on 01727 798000 or by email at info@salaw.com.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case

Author: Chris Alexander

This is hopefully a statement that the vast majority of us will never have to utter.  However, with the recent spate of civil unrest and several buildings across London ablaze over the last couple of nights, it is worth considering what provision your lease makes in the case of destruction or damage by an insured risk:

1.    Commercial leasehold premises

Every lease will be different but the usual position is that the landlord is responsible for insuring the building against  loss or damage by certain insured risks for its full reinstatement cost.  Fire and civil commotion (which is considered to include riots) are usually insured risks in most leases.

If the building is damaged or destroyed by an insured risk then the usual position is that the tenant should notify the landlord of the damage and the landlord should make a claim on the buildings insurance policy (most policies require notification within a certain period of time or cover can be lost).  The landlord is then usually obliged to apply the insurance monies for the reinstatement or rebuilding of the premises.  However, there are some exceptions to this general position:

a)    where the landlords obligations are conditional upon the tenant paying the insurance rent  and the tenant has failed to make payment;
b)    where the lease gives the landlord a discretion to decide whether to rebuild/reinstate (usually only in cases where it is considered impossible or impractical to do so)

I would also usually expect to see a suspension of rent clause, which will mean that the tenant is not obliged to pay the rent again until the premises are fit for occupation.

However, that said insurers as a general rule exclude riot from their fire damage policies.  It may therefore be the case that the policy in place does not exactly coincide with the landlord’s insurance obligations.  In the case of a claim denied by the insurers this could lead to a dispute between the landlord and tenant (unless the landlord’s obligation to insure is subject to any exclusions, limitations, excesses and conditions that may be imposed by the insurers).

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 does give a right of action for damage against the police authority in instances of riot (although claims must be delivered within 14 clear days after the day on which the happenings giving rise to them occurred).  This provides alternative recourse for those affected by riot damage.

Finally, the landlord’s insurance covenant will rarely require the landlord to insure against the tenant’s loss of profit for the period for which the premises are beyond use.  Therefore, only tenants who have taken out business interruption insurance will be completely protected.

2.    Residential Long Leases

The position is similar in a residential long leasehold situation, in that the landlord is likely to be obliged to insure and reinstate in the same way.  However, in the event that it is impractical or impossible to repair or rebuild the building, there may be an issue of an insurance shortfall between the reinstatement cost (which is what the insurers would pay out for) and the market value of the leasehold premises (ie what it was purchased for).

Chris advises on litigation and dispute resolution within the property sector, with a particular specialism in ‘real property’ and landlord/tenant matters.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Alexander on 01727 798000 or by email at chris.alexander@salaw.com.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case

Author: Steve Kenneford

With The Legal Onbudsman’s latest piece of research stating that “the legal professions confused system of regulation is leaving consumers without protection if things go wrong”. SA Law’s Steve Kenneford turns his attention to how to spot a quality, regulated law firm.

All trades and professions are populated by people who are trained to do the job for which they are  employed. That is a given, and consumers should be entitled to expect a minimum (satisfactory) level of competency and professionalism. However, when the need for a lawyer arises what will set one provider apart from the rest? Who has that ‘added value’?

Commodisised legal services providers are on the increase. With the advent of the changes to law firm management and ownership (Alternative Business Structures) which will be introduced later  this year, this is only set to increase further. So with more choice in the market place it is important that the consumer knows what type of organsiation they are instructing and who they are regulated by. This is where quality standard schemes come into their own.

Examples of quality standards can be found within  trades such as plumbing/gas and electrical installers, the former being covered by CORGI (Council for Recognised Gas Installers) now GasSafe, the latter by NICEIC (National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting) The NHS even operate NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) so it is about time that the legal industry followed suit.

Law Firms are highly regulated. Their integrity and professional competence is overseen in hawklike fashion by The Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority and The Legal Ombudsman. These organisations set the minimum standards to which law firms need to adhere.

Quality schemes within the legal profession address quality of service, governance, planning (business, strategy and operational) performance and management.

So when buying legal services what do you look for to ensure you will instruct a firm that will add value and go that extra mile?

The answer is the Lexcel Accreditation.
Lexcel is The Law Societys’ practice management standard. The scheme certifies that certain standards have been met following independent assessment. The standard is only awarded to law firms who meet the highest management and client care standards. Lexcel Accredited practices undergo rigorous independent assessment every year to ensure that high standards are maintained. The standard is exceedingly difficult to win and equally hard to retain. In the arena of legal services a Lexcel accredited practice is the safest possible pair of hands.

More specifically within the framework of legal quality standards The Law Society has just launched its’ Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS). This will provide a recognised quality standard for residential conveyancing services within a law firm. The CQS will establish a level of credibility for member firms based upon integrity, adherance to best practice, and a high level of client focused efficiency.

So “Who Ya Gonna Call?” Well, a shrewd and informed consumer will undoubtedly be inclined towards a law firm who has a recognised quality accreditation – that’s who you should call!

SA Law are a Lexcel Accredited law firm and in the process of being assessed for The Law Society CQS standard.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Kenneford on 01727 798000 or by email at steve.kenneford@salaw.com or any member of the Commercial Dispute Resolution team.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Chris Alexander

Is your business committing a criminal offence if its terms and conditions are unfair? A High Court decision earlier this year has raised the question as to whether unfair contract terms are now illegal as well as unenforceable.

SA Law Property Litigation Solicitor Chris Alexander discusses hidden dangers in terms and conditions.

Click here to read the full article

Author: Ben Ashworth

For 12,000 holiday makers travelling with Holidays 4 U, the summer get-away has became a nightmare.
Holidays 4 U (also trading as Aegean Flights), that had specialised in selling packages and flights to Turkey, has been placed into administration.
Holidays 4 U employed 18 staff, all of whom will now be made redundant in the course of the administration. As for the holiday makers, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will (as in a now all too established operation) be responsible for returning passengers who had booked flights as part of a package holiday with Holidays 4 U. Those passengers, together with those who have booked to travel with Holidays 4 U in the future, can also apply to be reimbursed out of  CAA’s Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Scheme (“ATOL”).
Following on from the collapse of Dream Holidays just last month, the loss of Holidays 4 U underlines the fragile state of the package holiday industry, which has very much become a headline victim to the lack of consumer spending and confidence in the UK economy.
In recent times, Holidays 4 U boasted an annual turnover of £35million. The fact that it has entered into administration from that position of strength, can only add to the concerns of all package tour operators that in the current economic climate, no-one is safe.

Author: Chris Alexander

It is not often that commercial lease renewal proceedings become headline news, however, this weekend I was flicking through the business pages of the Times and noticed that Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports had made the papers.

The case concerned the Immingham oil terminal in the Humber Estuary which is owned by Associated British Ports and was let to a joint venture vehicle owned by Total and Conoco Phillips.  As tenant, they wanted to renew their 40 year lease which was coming to an end and to try and achieve that they had issued proceedings for a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

This Act provides security of tenure for business tenants and means that a landlord can only terminate a lease after the end of the fixed term on a limited number of grounds.  One of the most common grounds for terminating a commercial lease is redevelopment but this case concerned the landlords intention to occupy the oil terminal itself.  The key date for assessing these intentions is the date of the hearing of the claim, which can often be important for tactical reasons and may have been one of the reasons that this particular part of the claim was heard as a preliminary issue.

The tenant had little option but to fight this case, as it expected that if APB assumed control of the terminal then it would cost it up to £40 million in additional charges.  APB’s case was that it wanted to occupy the terminal but that its business would involve giving access over or through the premises to other third parties.  There was a question as to whether APB’s plan would constitute occupying the premises for its own purposes and if so when, and in what circumstances APB so intended (ie if it could not show the relevant intention at the hearing date then its defence to the tenants claim for a new tenancy would fail).

Mr Justice Vos in the High Court decided in favour of APB.  In order to show sufficient intention the landlord only needed to show an ability to put its plan into effect.  Even thought the landlord’s plan may involve contracting with the current tenant charging it fees for using the port facilities, it was likely that ABP would occupy the oil terminal from the termination of the lease for the purposes of providing port facilities to third party oil companies or traders.

There remain other unresolved disputes but the landlord is now one step closer to recovering possession and the tenant.

Author: Alexis Asher

It is the time of year when employers will have been flooded with requests for leave. Often employers are unclear about their right to refuse holiday requests, and how to balance workloads with personnel being out of the office.

Below are some top tips on managing holiday absence:-

1. Ensure you have a Holidays Policy in place which covers the procedure for requests and grounds for refusal;
2. Ensure that you follow the policy at all times in order to avoid potential discrimination against any employee;
3. Remember that you have a right to refuse holiday requests if there is a genuine business reason to do so, e.g. if another employee from the same department has already been granted holiday for the same time and the absence of another employee would result in an unmanageable workload;
4. Limit the number of employees who can take annual leave at any given time;
5. If the business requires you to do so, you could specify periods when annual leave cannot be taken, e.g. January in retail businesses so that there is adequate staffing to deal with the sales.