Waiting time 3 months for spouse visa appeals

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

Replace the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) and Forfeiture

I posted elsewhere on this web about my personal experience of property managers sending false accounts, refusing to produce accounts compliant with s21 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (prosecuting body local councils have only a discretion to intervene) and disregarding County Court Orders regarding repairs and accounts with total impunity.   If you look at the website for CARL and for SELCHA – two grass roots organisations of victims of rogue property managers/freeholders you will see that there is a massive problem in the South East and probably throughout UK with freeholders and their agents sending false accounts (police wont prosecute) and misappropriating service charge funds and pocketting the difference between actual expenditure and stated expenditure (sometimes 1000% – one thousand percent – markup).    In 1985 Parliament passed legislation to help the flat-owners, presumably acknowledging problems accessing county court for breach of covenant it gave local authorities powers.   Parliament also acknowledged the problem when creating the LVT, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which has the power to remove a rogue property manager and to check the service charges.  Sadly the LVT has earned itself a reputation for being corrupt, and I can happily give details of evidence of this should you like.    CARL and SELCHA may also display details on their websites.  They suggest the LVT be replaced by a housing ombudsman.     I dont know how much the LVT costs the taxpayer, how much its adjudicators cost, but they should return the money because the are not discharging their duties and constistently disregarding Article 8. As they are a 'poor man's court' they know few can mount a Judicial Review or appeal to the Lands Tribunal.  The LVT is taking taxpayers money and not discharging its duties as set out in the Human Rights Act (I can give full details if asked).    

The problem seems to arise from the principle of Forfeiture which arises from The Law of Property Act 1925 (I think it may be section 146).  Forfeiture is almost uniquely English it is not known in Europe or in most other countries.   Forfeiture is where a freeholder/landlord can take someone's flat (home) from them without paying them a penny in compensation.   Most people who purchase their flats obtain a mortgage and pay it off over 25 years, making sacrificest o own their own home.   If the have paid £120,000 for their flat and they do not pay their £5 ground rent (or their freeholder denies receiving it) the freeholder can then simply change the locks and take this person's home for themselves, and not have to pay a penny.  He can then sell it for £120,000 and not pay the homeowner a penny.  This gives an incentive to villans to become freeholders/property managers and target people in their homes with false accounts, threatening forfeiture if they are not paid within 7days.  Sometimes the freeholders come across someone like me who queries their accounts but usually people pay up or get out quickly before they cannot leave. 

If s146 Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed, then it would bring us in line with most other countries, and it would not make it so easy and lucrative for freeholders to send false accounts.   

If the LVT was replaced with a  bona fide institution that would save the taxpayer loads of money and help homeowners as at the moment rogue freeholders boast about how bias the LVT is and how it is pointless going there as it will only cost the homeowner money and they wont get a fair hearing, so they may as well pay the false accounts as its cheaper.

Please help – pleae look at CARL's website and that of SELCHA.

 

Why is this idea important?

I posted elsewhere on this web about my personal experience of property managers sending false accounts, refusing to produce accounts compliant with s21 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (prosecuting body local councils have only a discretion to intervene) and disregarding County Court Orders regarding repairs and accounts with total impunity.   If you look at the website for CARL and for SELCHA – two grass roots organisations of victims of rogue property managers/freeholders you will see that there is a massive problem in the South East and probably throughout UK with freeholders and their agents sending false accounts (police wont prosecute) and misappropriating service charge funds and pocketting the difference between actual expenditure and stated expenditure (sometimes 1000% – one thousand percent – markup).    In 1985 Parliament passed legislation to help the flat-owners, presumably acknowledging problems accessing county court for breach of covenant it gave local authorities powers.   Parliament also acknowledged the problem when creating the LVT, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which has the power to remove a rogue property manager and to check the service charges.  Sadly the LVT has earned itself a reputation for being corrupt, and I can happily give details of evidence of this should you like.    CARL and SELCHA may also display details on their websites.  They suggest the LVT be replaced by a housing ombudsman.     I dont know how much the LVT costs the taxpayer, how much its adjudicators cost, but they should return the money because the are not discharging their duties and constistently disregarding Article 8. As they are a 'poor man's court' they know few can mount a Judicial Review or appeal to the Lands Tribunal.  The LVT is taking taxpayers money and not discharging its duties as set out in the Human Rights Act (I can give full details if asked).    

The problem seems to arise from the principle of Forfeiture which arises from The Law of Property Act 1925 (I think it may be section 146).  Forfeiture is almost uniquely English it is not known in Europe or in most other countries.   Forfeiture is where a freeholder/landlord can take someone's flat (home) from them without paying them a penny in compensation.   Most people who purchase their flats obtain a mortgage and pay it off over 25 years, making sacrificest o own their own home.   If the have paid £120,000 for their flat and they do not pay their £5 ground rent (or their freeholder denies receiving it) the freeholder can then simply change the locks and take this person's home for themselves, and not have to pay a penny.  He can then sell it for £120,000 and not pay the homeowner a penny.  This gives an incentive to villans to become freeholders/property managers and target people in their homes with false accounts, threatening forfeiture if they are not paid within 7days.  Sometimes the freeholders come across someone like me who queries their accounts but usually people pay up or get out quickly before they cannot leave. 

If s146 Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed, then it would bring us in line with most other countries, and it would not make it so easy and lucrative for freeholders to send false accounts.   

If the LVT was replaced with a  bona fide institution that would save the taxpayer loads of money and help homeowners as at the moment rogue freeholders boast about how bias the LVT is and how it is pointless going there as it will only cost the homeowner money and they wont get a fair hearing, so they may as well pay the false accounts as its cheaper.

Please help – pleae look at CARL's website and that of SELCHA.

 

Reduce the age limit to 18 years to invite spouse

I think the age limit for inviting your spouse should not be 21 it should be reduced back to 18 years of age. If you can get married without your parents permission at the age of 18 no one should stop you from inviting your spouse just because he/she is not a british citizen. Getting married at the age of 18 and inviting your spouse at the age of 21 is a 3 year wait no one should have to wait that long and cut  their spouse out for the first 3 years of their marriage which are meant to be the most special all just because of the law. Thier are people in the world who are happy with thier marriage its just a few that are let downs and because of them others are being punished. The parents are the ones who force thier children thier should be something done against them. This way others wouldn't be suffering people who are happy with thier marriage. I think increasing the age limit to 21 years isn't a good choice for reducing force marriage, the parents arent't going to change if they are going to force thier children they will whether thier age 21 or 29.
 

Why is this idea important?

I think the age limit for inviting your spouse should not be 21 it should be reduced back to 18 years of age. If you can get married without your parents permission at the age of 18 no one should stop you from inviting your spouse just because he/she is not a british citizen. Getting married at the age of 18 and inviting your spouse at the age of 21 is a 3 year wait no one should have to wait that long and cut  their spouse out for the first 3 years of their marriage which are meant to be the most special all just because of the law. Thier are people in the world who are happy with thier marriage its just a few that are let downs and because of them others are being punished. The parents are the ones who force thier children thier should be something done against them. This way others wouldn't be suffering people who are happy with thier marriage. I think increasing the age limit to 21 years isn't a good choice for reducing force marriage, the parents arent't going to change if they are going to force thier children they will whether thier age 21 or 29.