Buyers of property to let less deserving of protection
21/Jun/2011 14:16 Topics Investment | Valuation
Per Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc (t/a Colleys) [2011] the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision that for buy-to-let residential property the valuer was liable to the purchaser.
The CA held that although the valuer had been negligent and the purchaser had relied upon the valuer’s report (amongst other advice) when deciding to proceed, the purchaser did not establish foreseeability of damage or a sufficient degree of proximity between himself and the valuer.
Nor did the purchaser show that it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose (on the valuer) a duty of care to the purchaser. The Court held there were important distinctions to be made between valuations for buy-to-let purposes and those made for home buyers.
The court commented that those buying properties to let, were less "deserving of protection by the common law against the risk of negligence than those buying to occupy as their residence."
The CA held that although the valuer had been negligent and the purchaser had relied upon the valuer’s report (amongst other advice) when deciding to proceed, the purchaser did not establish foreseeability of damage or a sufficient degree of proximity between himself and the valuer.
Nor did the purchaser show that it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose (on the valuer) a duty of care to the purchaser. The Court held there were important distinctions to be made between valuations for buy-to-let purposes and those made for home buyers.
The court commented that those buying properties to let, were less "deserving of protection by the common law against the risk of negligence than those buying to occupy as their residence."
Listed Buildings
01/Jun/2011 09:42 Topics News | Investment
English Heritage has created a searchable database of all nationally designated heritage assets including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Protected Wreck Sites.
http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/
http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/
Cookies
28/May/2011 13:27 Topics News | Investment
Commencing 26 May 2011, all UK businesses and organisations running websites in the UK are required by law to obtain people’s consent before they install cookies on their machines. (A cookie is a line of code that enables websites to monitor visitor usage, etc: it does not identify the actual user.)
None of the websites that I run and maintain install cookies, but the company whose services I use to monitor usage does install cookies. I am checking the legality of that as far my responsibility is concerned. Frankly I think cookies are an invasion of privacy although I accept they are necessary in some matters so if it transpires that I need to obtain your consent then I shall end the arrangement with the monitoring company.
None of the websites that I run and maintain install cookies, but the company whose services I use to monitor usage does install cookies. I am checking the legality of that as far my responsibility is concerned. Frankly I think cookies are an invasion of privacy although I accept they are necessary in some matters so if it transpires that I need to obtain your consent then I shall end the arrangement with the monitoring company.
RICS dispute resolution fee
RICS dispute resolution application fee
With effect from 4 January 2011, the application fee payable to the RICS is £369.00 (inclusive of VAT at 20%)
Previously:
2000 April - £275 inclusive of VAT
2002 August - £300 inclusive of VAT
2006 June - £320 inclusive of VAT
2008 April - £340.00 inclusive VAT
2009 April 15 - £333 inclusive of VAT (15%)
2009 June 15 - £353 inclusive of VAT
2010 to 3 January 2011 - £361.00 inclusive of VAT (17.5%)
2011 January 4 - £369 inclusive of VAT (20%)
With effect from 4 January 2011, the application fee payable to the RICS is £369.00 (inclusive of VAT at 20%)
Previously:
2000 April - £275 inclusive of VAT
2002 August - £300 inclusive of VAT
2006 June - £320 inclusive of VAT
2008 April - £340.00 inclusive VAT
2009 April 15 - £333 inclusive of VAT (15%)
2009 June 15 - £353 inclusive of VAT
2010 to 3 January 2011 - £361.00 inclusive of VAT (17.5%)
2011 January 4 - £369 inclusive of VAT (20%)
Expert Witness Lip service
I have become so fed up with chartered surveyors paying ‘lip service’ to the RICS Practise Statement and guidance Notes for chartered surveyors acting as expert witness at rent review but ignoring the substantive provisions that I am going to make formal complaints to the President of the RICS.
In one case recently, the tenant’s expert witness surveyor, apparently on the RICS panel, failed to disclose that he and his firm are retained advisers for the tenant. The expert witness opinion was partisan and when challenged he said he was not answerable to me. Fair enough, but he is answerable to the RICS and being on RICS panel for dispute resolution appointed surveyors has a duty to set a good example.
In another matter at present, where I’m acting for the tenant, the landlord’s surveyor now acting as expert witness, quite apart from describing his report as a submission, thereby confirming ignorance of terminology, is basically arguing the matter as if an advocate.
In one case recently, the tenant’s expert witness surveyor, apparently on the RICS panel, failed to disclose that he and his firm are retained advisers for the tenant. The expert witness opinion was partisan and when challenged he said he was not answerable to me. Fair enough, but he is answerable to the RICS and being on RICS panel for dispute resolution appointed surveyors has a duty to set a good example.
In another matter at present, where I’m acting for the tenant, the landlord’s surveyor now acting as expert witness, quite apart from describing his report as a submission, thereby confirming ignorance of terminology, is basically arguing the matter as if an advocate.
Interest Rates
25/Feb/2011 12:45 Topics Interest Rates | Investment
Interest Rates
Base Rate 0.5% as at 26 October 2009
For MLR and Base Rate changes since 1989, please click here.
Base Rate 0.5% as at 26 October 2009
For MLR and Base Rate changes since 1989, please click here.
ex-Growth
13/Jan/2011 16:43 Topics Investment
On the page Shopping is History I have added a section “ex-growth’ where I list the trading names of multiple retailers that, in my opinion, are gradually or quickly falling by the wayside.
In the context of shop property for investment, the financial standing of a tenant can affect investment performance.
Although property costs (rent, business rates, etc) are often blamed, in practice, in my opinion, the majority of problems that befall retailers are self-inflicted through failure to address operational difficulties.
Difficulties also arise where the trading location has improved, but the nature of the tenant’s business is out of kilter. Conversely, the trading position may have deteriorated, but the retailer’s mode of business, particularly on pricing, is not commensurate.
Where trading difficulties are caused by external events over which a retailer has no apparent control, such as severe weather conditions, the state of the economy, recession, and so on, such events are often cited as the cause of profit deterioration, but the fact that other retailers operating in the same sector of the market may be doing well, despite the same ostensibly adverse conditions, makes me think that ‘blaming’ such external events is used as an excuse for the retailer’s own shortcomings.
The challenge, in times of change, as indeed at all times, is to always remain in sync with what customers want to buy. There are many reasons for being out of sync, for example:
Although many retailers come unstuck in time of change, in practice it is not difficult to avoid that scenario. The main obstacle is that many retailers are resistant to change and will only do so when it is forced upon them, by which time it might be too late.
In the context of shop property for investment, the financial standing of a tenant can affect investment performance.
Although property costs (rent, business rates, etc) are often blamed, in practice, in my opinion, the majority of problems that befall retailers are self-inflicted through failure to address operational difficulties.
Difficulties also arise where the trading location has improved, but the nature of the tenant’s business is out of kilter. Conversely, the trading position may have deteriorated, but the retailer’s mode of business, particularly on pricing, is not commensurate.
Where trading difficulties are caused by external events over which a retailer has no apparent control, such as severe weather conditions, the state of the economy, recession, and so on, such events are often cited as the cause of profit deterioration, but the fact that other retailers operating in the same sector of the market may be doing well, despite the same ostensibly adverse conditions, makes me think that ‘blaming’ such external events is used as an excuse for the retailer’s own shortcomings.
The challenge, in times of change, as indeed at all times, is to always remain in sync with what customers want to buy. There are many reasons for being out of sync, for example:
- The retailer is not providing as good a service as it thinks
- The retailer is offering what it wants customers to want: not what people need.
- Directors have lost interest - particular common if just short of retirement age, or having made a pile cannot really be bothered!
- Directors are disillusioned - a feeling that indicates lack of sync with reality.
- The business is failing to deliver what it promises.
- The retailer’s staff have the wrong attitude for the customers in the reality that the business serves.
- There is insufficient demand or too much competition to run a profitable business.
- Cash-flow is poor and other business management skills are lacking.
- The business is not professional and forward-thinking in its outlook.
- The directors are more interested in helping themselves than helping others.
- The directors are not doing what is essentially true for them.
Although many retailers come unstuck in time of change, in practice it is not difficult to avoid that scenario. The main obstacle is that many retailers are resistant to change and will only do so when it is forced upon them, by which time it might be too late.