Fantastic news Sydney Mitchell has won Law Firm of the Year in the 5-15 partners' category in the Birmingham Law Society Awards 2018. A great achievement! Thank you to all the partners and staff who made this achievement possible.
Partners Fahmida Ismail, Sarah Archer, Kam Majevadia, Tracy Creed, Dean Parnell and Mauro Vinti accepted the award on the night presented by Emma Jesson and the category sponsored by Tony Rollason (Landmark Information Group).
Fahmida Ismail commented:
What an excellent result, recognising the hard work contributed by every single person in the firm in making us exceptional and being recognised by the Birmingham Law Society as Law Firm of the Year.
We are all extremely proud to continue to serve our clients to the highest standard. Birmingham has such a lot to offer businesses and individuals and Awards like this just continue to show that we have great quality firms and people here in Birmingham.
Sydney Mitchell specialist teams include employment, commercial property, company and commercial services, litigation and insolvency. Private client teams include family law, residential property, dispute resolution and wills and probate, contentious probate, tax and trusts and personal injury.
Sydney Mitchell previously won this award in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and it is a fantastic result that the firm has won the award in 2018.
Well done to all the winners in the Birmingham Law Society Awards 2018 - full list link attached
http://www.birminghamlawsociety.co.uk/2018winners
If you would like help on any legal matters, please call 0121 698 2200 or email enquiries@sydneymitchell.co.uk or fill in our online enquiry form
Leading Midlands Law Firm Sydney Mitchell gives a helping hand to parents who are feeling the pain when faced with the prospect of losing their children.
The family department in the Birmingham office has expanded their team to provide help and advice to families that are faced with complexities involving disputes regarding children.
Amanda Holland, Associate Lawyer in the City Family Team comments:
The idea came about because our family team became increasingly frustrated at being unable to help parents who were not eligble for Legal Aid but clearly needed some level of legal assistance, but were unable to afford the costs involved in our dealing with the whole case.
So they gave up and tried to represent themselves which often left them at a disadvantage or in some cases parents gave up completely and lost all contact with their children.
The client can chose which package they need to suit their budget and which stage of the process they need help with. This could simply be help completing court forms. Alternatively, it might be assistance at court.
The Family Team based at Sydney Mitchell’s Birmingham office are: Amanda Holland, Nigel Mears and Miranda Buttler.
Miranda Buttler, Legal Assistant, added:
This innovative package for clients will make legal advice more accessible in bite size chunks. The office is in the heart of Birmingham City Centre and within walking distance of the Family Court at Birmingham.
Sydney Mitchell Private Client teams include family law, residential property, dispute resolution and wills and probate, contentious probate, tax and trusts and personal injury. Sydney Mitchell’s corporate teams include employment, commercial property, company and commercial services, litigation and insolvency.
More information about this service... click here
For help and advice on this or other related Family matter contact Amanda Holland on 0121 698 2245
The vast majority of the public will not be aware of the impending reforms set out by the Government in respect of an increase to the Small claims limit for claims involving road traffic accidents. This reform raises the threshold of claims to £5000 from £1000 in addition to the introduction of a tariff system, which will see the vast majority of claims falling under this new procedure. As a result, most claimants will not be able to access legal representation as costs cannot be recovered in the small claims court.
There will no doubt be a restriction of access to justice for the injured, as members of the public will not have the benefit of skilled, independent legal advice to circumnavigate not only the rules, but also see the correct level of compensation / damages. They will also be faced with the googly of a well-funded insurer, who will have a legal outfield who will put out a very strong field.
We fear this will result in an uneven playing field and that is ‘just not cricket’.
In the event that you have been bowled out in a road traffic accident, when it was not your fault, please contact David Lydon at Sydney Mitchell Solicitors who will come out to bat on your side!
David Lydon 0808 166 8974 Email: d.lydon@sydneymitchell.co.uk
Their activities had generated a considerable amount of hostility from neighbours and their landlord, a social housing trust, received complaints that the man was invading other residents’ privacy by recording them going about their lives. There was particular concern that he had filmed children and young people. There were also complaints that the woman’s CCTV equipment covered an area beyond the boundaries of her property and was being used for an inappropriate purpose.
The landlord’s response was to issue escalating warnings and threats of legal action against the tenants. They were accused of causing an annoyance or nuisance to their neighbours, in breach of their tenancy agreements, and were eventually told that injunctions would be sought against them and that their homes were at risk. After the tenants obtained legal advice, they launched proceedings against the landlord under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
In upholding their claims, a judge found that the landlord’s analysis of the complaints had been wholly uncritical and inadequate. Baseless and entirely incorrect allegations had been made against the man. The woman had been granted specific permission by the landlord to install CCTV at a previous address and had reasonably assumed that the same equipment could be installed at her new home. Both tenants had been subjected to an oppressive course of conduct and the man was awarded £4,750 in damages. The woman received a £4,160 award.
In dismissing the landlord’s challenge to the judge’s ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the approach of the landlord’s estate manager had been hopelessly careless and that the tenants’ treatment clearly amounted to harassment. Both were long-term assured tenants and the landlord had at all material times been aware of their concerns about anti-social behaviour. In the circumstances, the landlord should have known that its unjustified actions would cause them alarm and distress.
For help and advice contact Sundeep Bilkhu on s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
Plenty of parents have difficulty in convincing their home-bird children that it might be time to fly the coop and get a place of their own, but one American family was forced to resort to extreme measures to get their 30-year-old son to move out of home.
The married couple from New York were forced to bring their son to court to have him evicted from their home, where he had lived for the last eight years.
The court heard that the couple, aged in their fifties, had made multiple and increasingly desperate attempts to convince their son to move out of his own accord, but to no avail. They had served him with letters asking him to leave and had offered him money and support in finding a place of his own and a job.
But the son, who represented himself in court, argued with the judge that he was entitled to six more months of living in the family home. The judge, after failing to convince the son to move out of his own volition, called that demand ‘outrageous’ and issued an eviction order. The son in turn called the eviction order ‘outrageous’.
The court heard that the parents had given their son a letter telling him he had 14 days to vacate the house and stating that they would “take whatever actions are necessary to enforce this decision.” When he refused to leave, they gave him another letter telling him to move out immediately and advised him to sell some of his property to help support himself. They also offered to help him find a job.
Speaking outside the court, the son insisted there had been no incidents of falling out between him and his parents but said he intended to appeal the eviction notice.
Fortunately most parents won’t need to go to such lengths to convince kids who are reluctant to spread their wings!
For help and advice contact Sundeep Bilkhu on s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
Tenants are legally entitled to be consulted before their landlords sign agreements with their managing agents or others that extend beyond a 12-month period and result in the levying of service charges. As a Court of Appeal case showed, failure to comply with such requirements can have extremely serious consequences.
The case concerned an urban block of flats occupied by over 150 leaseholders. The property’s freeholder launched proceedings against one tenant in order to recover more than £24,000 in alleged arrears of service charges. Part of that related to the tenant’s contribution to fees payable by the freeholder to its managing agent.
That portion of the service charges was, however, disallowed by the First-tier Tribunal on the basis that the agreement between the freeholder and its agent was a qualifying long-term agreement – within the meaning of Section 20ZA(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – to which mandatory consultation requirements applied. There was no dispute that those requirements had not been met. The freeholder’s challenge to that ruling was later rejected by the Upper Tribunal.
In dismissing the freeholder’s appeal against the latter decision, the Court of Appeal noted that the relevant agreement stated that it would last for one year. However, it did not stop there, also providing that the agreement would continue thereafter. On its true interpretation, the agreement introduced a mandatory requirement that it would continue beyond the initial 12 months for an unspecified further period.
In those circumstances, the Court found that the agreement was indeed a qualifying long-term agreement to which the consultation requirements applied. The failure to comply with those requirements meant that, by operation of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003, the tenant’s contribution to the managing agent’s fees was capped at £100 per annum.
For help and advice contact Sundeep Bilkhu on s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
The case concerned a six-storey building occupied by a corporate tenant under a 100-year lease. The company wished to apply for planning consent to change the use of the building’s second and third floors from storage to residential. However, the lease contained a tenant’s covenant not to apply for planning permission without the prior written consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
The landlord had refused to grant the required consent on grounds that a successful application for planning consent would significantly increase the proportion of the building that was used for residential purposes. That in turn would boost the tenant’s hopes of employing the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in order to acquire the freehold of the property.
The landlord owned a large number of properties in the area and viewed leasehold enfranchisement as an undesirable prospect that would impinge on its proper management of the wider estate. After the tenant launched proceedings, however, a judge found that the landlord’s consent had been unreasonably withheld and opened the way for the tenant to lodge the required planning application.
In ruling on the landlord’s challenge to that decision, the Court noted that the case raised novel issues on which there was no previous authority. In dismissing the appeal, it observed that the lease expressly authorised the tenant to use the whole of the building for residential purposes. There was no proviso that residential use of the whole or any part of the property was subject to the landlord’s consent.
In those circumstances, the Court found that the landlord had refused consent for the planning application for the collateral purpose of restricting the tenant’s right to make residential use of the entire building. The reality was that any third party could apply for planning permission to authorise such use and that only the tenant was precluded from doing so without the landlord’s consent. It seemed inconceivable that that was the intention of the original parties to the lease.
For help and advice contact Shilpa Unarkat on s.unarkat@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
The agency accumulated licence fee arrears and its director proposed a schedule of payments to a credit controller employed by the company, by which some payments would be deferred and the payment of arrears would be spread over the remainder of the licence period. The company subsequently locked the agency out of the premises, terminated the licence and sued it for the arrears. The agency counterclaimed, seeking damages for wrongful exclusion from the premises.
A judge accepted that the company had, via the credit controller, orally agreed to the schedule of payments. However, he went on to find that the company was entitled to claim the arrears without regard to that agreement because it did not satisfy the formal requirements of the NOM clause. The Court of Appeal later upheld the agency’s challenge to that ruling on the basis that, by orally agreeing to the agency’s proposal, the company had also consented to dispense with the NOM clause and to accept an oral variation of the licence agreement.
In allowing the company’s appeal against that ruling, the Supreme Court noted that NOM clauses are commonplace and perform important purposes. They prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means; they avoid disputes about whether variations are intended and, if so, their exact terms; and they make it easier for corporations to police their own internal rules.
By its decision, the Court of Appeal had overridden the contracting parties’ intention to bind themselves as to the manner in which future changes to their legal relations were to be achieved. In those circumstances, there had been no variation of the licence agreement and the company was entitled to rely on its strict terms.
For help and advice contact Sundeep Bilkhu on s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
Following lengthy proceedings, the Upper Tribunal (UT) granted the landlord a declaration under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that the tenant had breached a covenant in her lease. That covenant forbade her from altering, cutting or maiming any of the maisonette’s exterior walls without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent to the works.
That decision opened the way for the landlord to seek forfeiture of the tenant’s lease under Section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, the UT noted that, if there were to be further proceedings, the nature and seriousness of the breach should be viewed in context. Had the tenant asked permission to make the hole, it was highly probable that the landlord could not reasonably have refused her request.
For help and advice contact Jay Singh on j.singh@sydneymitchell.co.uk or call 0808 166 8974.
Pages
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
