Changes to Right to Purchase Freehold

We would like to propose what we think is a far more efficient, far more cost effective and much fairer way of dealing with requests from leaseholders wishing to purchase the freehold to their own homes:

  1. Should negotiation between the leaseholders and the freeholder fail to agree a fair price for the freehold, a direct application is made to an approved valuerfor a valuation anda speedy resolution.
  2. Should there be a disagreement over the independent valuation, then each party could seek a further valuation and the median of the valuations be adopted.
  3. The Tribunal should be required to report within 4 weeks of any hearing and should adhere to this or else pay compensation e.g. return their fees or a daily penalty.
  4. The freeholder should have to provide valid, legal title documents at their expense rather than any costs of updating documents falling to the leaseholder.
  5. The freeholder should be ready to complete within 8 weeks of the Tribunal decision and is subject to fines/compensation for each day they exceed this.
  6. The leaseholder should not have to pay the freeholders costs for a valuation report unless that report is also copied to the leaseholders. This will increase the chance of a mutually agreeable freehold price being identified and prevent the leaseholder paying for a service they don’t receive.
  7. To act as an incentive for the freeholder to act swiftly, the leaseholder(s) should not have to pay all of the freeholder’s costs and there should be far more onus on the freeholder to act faster and fairer. Time limits should be set for each side to adhere to with appropriate sanctions and compensation for slippages.
  8. The removal of the draconian situation where the leaseholder forfeits their right to proceed if they miss a deadline, especially as it can be missed by the freeholder doing nothing and the leaseholder constantly has to chase and push the freeholder to respond – after all the leaseholderswant to purchase the freehold!

From the moment the leaseholder invokes their ‘right to buy’ the freehold, the whole process should be completed within a set period of time,say a maximum of 12 months.

Why is this idea important?

We would like to propose what we think is a far more efficient, far more cost effective and much fairer way of dealing with requests from leaseholders wishing to purchase the freehold to their own homes:

  1. Should negotiation between the leaseholders and the freeholder fail to agree a fair price for the freehold, a direct application is made to an approved valuerfor a valuation anda speedy resolution.
  2. Should there be a disagreement over the independent valuation, then each party could seek a further valuation and the median of the valuations be adopted.
  3. The Tribunal should be required to report within 4 weeks of any hearing and should adhere to this or else pay compensation e.g. return their fees or a daily penalty.
  4. The freeholder should have to provide valid, legal title documents at their expense rather than any costs of updating documents falling to the leaseholder.
  5. The freeholder should be ready to complete within 8 weeks of the Tribunal decision and is subject to fines/compensation for each day they exceed this.
  6. The leaseholder should not have to pay the freeholders costs for a valuation report unless that report is also copied to the leaseholders. This will increase the chance of a mutually agreeable freehold price being identified and prevent the leaseholder paying for a service they don’t receive.
  7. To act as an incentive for the freeholder to act swiftly, the leaseholder(s) should not have to pay all of the freeholder’s costs and there should be far more onus on the freeholder to act faster and fairer. Time limits should be set for each side to adhere to with appropriate sanctions and compensation for slippages.
  8. The removal of the draconian situation where the leaseholder forfeits their right to proceed if they miss a deadline, especially as it can be missed by the freeholder doing nothing and the leaseholder constantly has to chase and push the freeholder to respond – after all the leaseholderswant to purchase the freehold!

From the moment the leaseholder invokes their ‘right to buy’ the freehold, the whole process should be completed within a set period of time,say a maximum of 12 months.

More widespread legal graffiti walls

I am a street artist, and professional graphic designer. I take pride in the fact that I harbor the skill to create beautiful street art, and enjoy doing so publicly. I teach workshops occasionally underneath the Southbank Centre where there is indeed a legal graffiti wall.

My idea is that to introduce more legal graffiti walls in the UK which are accessible to all. Graffiti is a form of art, and even though there are mindless vandals scrawling obscenities on the walls nationwide, why not give them an opportunity to try and learn to create art in secluded areas.

I can understand that the government seems to assume graffiti artists are mostly vandals with drug problems, however, this is just an old stereotype that needs to be addressed.

Why is this idea important?

I am a street artist, and professional graphic designer. I take pride in the fact that I harbor the skill to create beautiful street art, and enjoy doing so publicly. I teach workshops occasionally underneath the Southbank Centre where there is indeed a legal graffiti wall.

My idea is that to introduce more legal graffiti walls in the UK which are accessible to all. Graffiti is a form of art, and even though there are mindless vandals scrawling obscenities on the walls nationwide, why not give them an opportunity to try and learn to create art in secluded areas.

I can understand that the government seems to assume graffiti artists are mostly vandals with drug problems, however, this is just an old stereotype that needs to be addressed.

Policy on Knives

The policy on knife crime should be reviewed for change to, that NO one under 21 should carry a knife in public, as it appears that the cast majority of crime involving knives is carried out by teenagers, and that if a knife is used in an illegal fashion by anyone over the age of 21 the punishments should be severe. therefore making it that a Law abiding citezan not be criminalized by carrying a kinfe in public,

Why is this idea important?

The policy on knife crime should be reviewed for change to, that NO one under 21 should carry a knife in public, as it appears that the cast majority of crime involving knives is carried out by teenagers, and that if a knife is used in an illegal fashion by anyone over the age of 21 the punishments should be severe. therefore making it that a Law abiding citezan not be criminalized by carrying a kinfe in public,

All Proposed Laws Should Attain ‘Crystal Mark’ (As per the Plain English Campaign) Before Being Added To The Statute Books

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

Why is this idea important?

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

Legal Highs; Another Reason Prohibition Has Failed; News From Today

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Why is this idea important?

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Repeal of Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and Section 7 of the Childrens Act 1989: abolition of CAFCASS.

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Why is this idea important?

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Sale of services: clarity on legal insurers & unions

I want two pieces of clarity.

  1. The same consumer protection service should cover legal insurers & the legal insurance work of trades unions.  At the moment if you ring Consumer Direct about a rip-off by a trades union, they tell you to try the Financial Services Authority. Try them and they say try the Certification Office. I pressed my point on the phone so the boss of the helpline office rang me back to say that this was not a political thing; unions do other things apart from legal insurance, and that's the reasoning "like getting you cheap food at the canteen" he said. But a legal insurere that also offers human resources advice or is bundled with the services of Cardsave or the Federation of Small Businesses is covered. Likewise unions have no trouble registering with the FSA for their work flogging financial services to the mailing list, but don't want to register as legal insurers. On to the Cerfication Office: "complaints regarding a union’s failure to represent a member adequately, or at all" are not covered. That's what they say on their web site.
     
  2. Legal insurers who use no-win no-fee lawyers should be transparent about it. At the moment some legal insurers pay no insurance premium tax: all the money goes to the broker. They charge no-win no-fee lawyers such as Shoesmiths referral fees, accoding to the company quoted in an Observer article: "It's the only source of income we get", said someone at DAS legal insurance.

    Now, if the whole edifice of a legal insurance company is funded by no-win no-fee lawyers, most consumers would cancel their subscription and think of another way to get such lawyers. They would be right to do so. Apart from a murkey hope that a legal firm can use cross-subsidise cases there is no excuse for running such a service and a murkey hope is no hope at all.

Why is this idea important?

I want two pieces of clarity.

  1. The same consumer protection service should cover legal insurers & the legal insurance work of trades unions.  At the moment if you ring Consumer Direct about a rip-off by a trades union, they tell you to try the Financial Services Authority. Try them and they say try the Certification Office. I pressed my point on the phone so the boss of the helpline office rang me back to say that this was not a political thing; unions do other things apart from legal insurance, and that's the reasoning "like getting you cheap food at the canteen" he said. But a legal insurere that also offers human resources advice or is bundled with the services of Cardsave or the Federation of Small Businesses is covered. Likewise unions have no trouble registering with the FSA for their work flogging financial services to the mailing list, but don't want to register as legal insurers. On to the Cerfication Office: "complaints regarding a union’s failure to represent a member adequately, or at all" are not covered. That's what they say on their web site.
     
  2. Legal insurers who use no-win no-fee lawyers should be transparent about it. At the moment some legal insurers pay no insurance premium tax: all the money goes to the broker. They charge no-win no-fee lawyers such as Shoesmiths referral fees, accoding to the company quoted in an Observer article: "It's the only source of income we get", said someone at DAS legal insurance.

    Now, if the whole edifice of a legal insurance company is funded by no-win no-fee lawyers, most consumers would cancel their subscription and think of another way to get such lawyers. They would be right to do so. Apart from a murkey hope that a legal firm can use cross-subsidise cases there is no excuse for running such a service and a murkey hope is no hope at all.

Make the law accessible and judges more accountable

Cap fees for lawyers and educate judges to care about the quality of work carried out by lawyers. Review lawyers claims for costs on basis of work achieved and time that really needed to be spent. I would also provide transcripts of cases to litigants in person free of charge to help them challenge lazy judges. The methods of recourse when the legal systems fails are slow, inefficient and untrustworthy.

Why is this idea important?

Cap fees for lawyers and educate judges to care about the quality of work carried out by lawyers. Review lawyers claims for costs on basis of work achieved and time that really needed to be spent. I would also provide transcripts of cases to litigants in person free of charge to help them challenge lazy judges. The methods of recourse when the legal systems fails are slow, inefficient and untrustworthy.

Where does it allow in the British constitution that Britain can be governed by an outside nation not elected by the British people?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Why is this idea important?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Restore Public Confidence In The Law

To Repeal whatever legislation is neccessary to remove the law-making powers from the select few in sitting in parliament (or in the case of Wales, the Welsh Assembly), and to put decisions for accepting any new legislation, or repealing any existing legislation, to the public vote.
The decision of said vote could be used as the decision to enact, or repeal, said legislation for a nominated period of time (such as ten years) before said legislation can again be put to public vote. Forums such as this could be used to choose the laws to be voted on, and the votes could be held simultaneously to the general or local authority elections.

Why is this idea important?

To Repeal whatever legislation is neccessary to remove the law-making powers from the select few in sitting in parliament (or in the case of Wales, the Welsh Assembly), and to put decisions for accepting any new legislation, or repealing any existing legislation, to the public vote.
The decision of said vote could be used as the decision to enact, or repeal, said legislation for a nominated period of time (such as ten years) before said legislation can again be put to public vote. Forums such as this could be used to choose the laws to be voted on, and the votes could be held simultaneously to the general or local authority elections.

Murdering Scotsmen

'In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.'

This law needs to be scarpped as it's not really very friendly.

Plus I'm sure it must be a contravention of a tiny thing called human rights.

Why is this idea important?

'In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.'

This law needs to be scarpped as it's not really very friendly.

Plus I'm sure it must be a contravention of a tiny thing called human rights.

End the failed war on drugs, new approach is needed

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

Why is this idea important?

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

Sentencing Policies

Review all laws which include prison sentences for minor / non crimes.  Examples:-

1st class carriages misuse on trains  ( Says fines or imprisonment for abuse)

Selling goods which do not accord with EU weight or numbers ( ie selling by pound weight )

Not paying TV licence.

Defending yourself in the home

citizens trying to stop crime or hooligans

Why is this idea important?

Review all laws which include prison sentences for minor / non crimes.  Examples:-

1st class carriages misuse on trains  ( Says fines or imprisonment for abuse)

Selling goods which do not accord with EU weight or numbers ( ie selling by pound weight )

Not paying TV licence.

Defending yourself in the home

citizens trying to stop crime or hooligans

Equalising the requirement for truth in civil and criminal court cases

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Stop private firms using Blue Flashing Lights, Sirens and Battenberg Liveries etc on their vehicles

Limit the fitting of Blue Flashing Lights, Sirens and Battenberg Liveries etc to official NHS, Fire, Police, RNLI, Blood Transfusion Service, Coastguard, Search & Rescue vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

Limit the fitting of Blue Flashing Lights, Sirens and Battenberg Liveries etc to official NHS, Fire, Police, RNLI, Blood Transfusion Service, Coastguard, Search & Rescue vehicles.

Restoring choice of representation in employment tribunals.

The repeal of the Compensation Act 2006 which makes it an offence for a paid representative other than a solicitor or barrister to represent claimants at employment tribunals. This restricts claimants' choice as to who they can have to represent them. Most claimants, who may have lost their jobs which is why they are making claims to employment tribunals, find it too expensive to employ solicitors or barristers to represent them. Paid non-lawyers representatives can appear for claimants at employment tribunal but they have to obtain an expensive licence from the Quango that supervise these lay representatives and, in addition, these  paid representatives – many of whom represent claimants on a 'no win, no fee' basis – have to pay a high yearly fee that goes to maintain the totally unnecessary Quango. Previously, the employment tribunal system operated efficiently for over 35 years without this form of unnecessary and restrictive regulation. 

The essential points are: abolish the Quango and the supervisory regime; by doing that claimants will have greater choice of representatives; this would lower the cost of employment tribunal representation; it would also break the 'dock labour' style monopoly of work in this area of the law in which the work is mainly restricted to solicitors and barristers which was the main (albeit covert) reason for enacting the Compensation Act 2006.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of the Compensation Act 2006 which makes it an offence for a paid representative other than a solicitor or barrister to represent claimants at employment tribunals. This restricts claimants' choice as to who they can have to represent them. Most claimants, who may have lost their jobs which is why they are making claims to employment tribunals, find it too expensive to employ solicitors or barristers to represent them. Paid non-lawyers representatives can appear for claimants at employment tribunal but they have to obtain an expensive licence from the Quango that supervise these lay representatives and, in addition, these  paid representatives – many of whom represent claimants on a 'no win, no fee' basis – have to pay a high yearly fee that goes to maintain the totally unnecessary Quango. Previously, the employment tribunal system operated efficiently for over 35 years without this form of unnecessary and restrictive regulation. 

The essential points are: abolish the Quango and the supervisory regime; by doing that claimants will have greater choice of representatives; this would lower the cost of employment tribunal representation; it would also break the 'dock labour' style monopoly of work in this area of the law in which the work is mainly restricted to solicitors and barristers which was the main (albeit covert) reason for enacting the Compensation Act 2006.

Housing Court – quick action for residential tenants and landlords

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Why is this idea important?

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Automatic Copyright for 3D Products, Inventions etc. like Books etc. Patents cost too much

Write a book, Write some music, paint a picture, photograph a scene etc. and the author AUTOMATICALLY gets 50+ years copyright cover WORLD WIDE. BUT invent a product, or make something in 3D and you currently DO NOT get the same automatic, powerful copyright cover. Instead you have to Pay (A LOT) for a patent, or design registration. 

Try and extend this patent cover to other countries and it costs even more, then after a long winded, expensive process, you may get a patent – but then to stop an infringement you have to have the patent in each country and expensive lawyers to make it stick.

Unlike copyright, where you pay nothing, To keep a patent 'alive' you have to pay an annual fee these fee's usually go up each year and have to be paid in each country .. some countries fees are very expensive.

Why is this idea important?

Write a book, Write some music, paint a picture, photograph a scene etc. and the author AUTOMATICALLY gets 50+ years copyright cover WORLD WIDE. BUT invent a product, or make something in 3D and you currently DO NOT get the same automatic, powerful copyright cover. Instead you have to Pay (A LOT) for a patent, or design registration. 

Try and extend this patent cover to other countries and it costs even more, then after a long winded, expensive process, you may get a patent – but then to stop an infringement you have to have the patent in each country and expensive lawyers to make it stick.

Unlike copyright, where you pay nothing, To keep a patent 'alive' you have to pay an annual fee these fee's usually go up each year and have to be paid in each country .. some countries fees are very expensive.