Rush to beat HIPs deadline creates dip in house prices
The rush to beat the deadline for extending Home Information Packs (HIPs) to homes of all sizes saw a surge in the number of small properties being put up for sale in November and early December. It led to a fall in house prices according to a survey carried out by the property website, Rightmove.
HIPs were introduced for four bedroom houses in August and then for three bedroom homes in September. The scheme was extended to properties with two or fewer bedrooms on 14th December.
Rightmove says that in the first week of December 2006, 38% of properties coming on to the market had two or fewer bedrooms. That jumped to 48% over the same period in 2007 as people selling smaller properties tried to beat the deadline for acquiring HIPs.
The average asking price fell by 3.2% compared with the previous month. Two thirds of the fall was due to seasonal factors as the period before Christmas is traditionally quiet but the rest of the fall was down to the sudden surge of cheaper properties being put up for sale at the same time.
Miles Shipside, Commercial Director of Rightmove said: “New listings are very low at this time of year, so the artificial wave of ‘low-end sellers’ has really distorted the average prices of new properties coming on to the market.”
Rightmove says the January figures are also likely to be down but February should bring a rebound because the HIP effect should have worked through the system by then.
Restaurant owners can keep £10m left to them in friend’s will
The owners of a Chinese restaurant have been told they can inherit £10m left to them by a friend in her will. Golda Bechal died in 2004 aged 88. She made a will in 1994 leaving nearly all her estate to her best friends, Kim Sing Man and his wife Bee Lian Man, who run a restaurant in Essex.
The High Court was told that Mrs Bechal had become sad and lonely after the death of her husband and the loss of her son Peter who died at the age of 28. She became close to the Mans and became like a member of their family, often visiting their restaurant and taking holidays with them.
After her death, her five nephews and nieces challenged the will saying that she suffered from dementia and didn’t know what she was doing when it was drawn up. Mr Man was asked in court if he had expected to inherit nearly all of the estate but he said Mrs Bechal had not talked to him or his wife about her will and they were not present when it was drawn up.
Judge Sir Donald Rattee, QC, said he was satisfied that Mrs Bechal was aware of what she was doing when she drew up the will and was also fully aware of the extent of her estate. He said: “In my judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Bechal had testamentary capacity. The will executed by Mrs Bechal in August 1994 was valid.'
Don’t risk your money – get the law on your side this year
Each year thousands of well meaning people create heartache for themselves and their families at the same time as throwing away large amounts of money unnecessarily. Yet a few simple New Year resolutions could provide peace of mind for you and your loved ones.
New Year Resolution: make a will or bring your existing will up to date
Consider the example of former dental nurse Cyd Negus. She met businessman Henry Bahouse in 1995 and they planned to marry. He promised to provide for her but he suffered from depression and took his own life in 2005.
In the midst of her grief Ms Negus then received another blow, for it turned out that Mr Bahouse had not updated his will to include her. All his estate went to the children of his first marriage and she was left with nothing.
Ms Negus had no choice but to take legal action. The judge ruled in her favour saying that she had effectively been Mr Bahouse’s wife in all but name and he had intended to provide for her. She was awarded more than £600,000 with the rest of the £3m estate going to Mr Bahouse’s family.
It could be said that justice was done in the end but consider the two years of stress, heartache, time and money involved with two sides of a family pitted against each other in court at a time when they are all still grieving for someone they loved.
Yet it could all have been avoided if Mr Bahouse had only got round to the simple task of updating his will. If people don’t make a will then their estate will be divided up along rules laid down by law. It means large sums money may go to members of the family you wouldn’t choose to leave anything to and some could end up with the taxman.
New Year Resolution: consider a living together agreement
Most people will have read about the acrimonious divorce proceedings between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. She reportedly offered him the chance to draw up a pre-nuptial agreement when they married but he declined on the basis that it seemed a little cold and unromantic.
Pre-nups are often associated with celebrities but they are becoming more widespread as people accept that marriages do often fail and in those circumstances, anything that can reduce the legal wrangling over money has to be worth exploring. Pre-nups aren’t legally binding in this country but they are still helpful as the courts will take them into account as long as they are fair to both sides.
People who co-habit should also consider making legal arrangements because they are far more vulnerable than married couples. Many people believe they have a common law marriage which provides them with legal rights but this is not the case. Women are particularly at risk as they could find themselves living with a man for years, contributing to household expenses and then be left with nothing when the relationship breaks up because everything is in their partner’s name.
New Year Resolution: consider Lasting Powers of Attorney
Many people had not even heard of powers of attorney until they became the theme of a powerful storyline featuring the character Mike Baldwin in Coronation Street. The family squabbles depicted may have been fictitious but they will have been all too real for thousands of people throughout the country.
The Baldwin character was suffering from a debilitating mental illness which meant he could no longer properly control his business affairs.
Such situations can be avoided in real life if you appoint someone now to act as your attorney should failing health ever prevent you being able to make decisions for yourself. The law has just been modified to improve the system with the introduction of Lasting Powers of Attorney. They allow you give someone authority to run your business affairs if the need arises and also to make decisions on your behalf about what medical treatment you should receive. This can even extend to deciding whether or not a life-support machine should be switched off.
There are safeguards to prevent the system being abused so you can prepare for the possibility of ill health secure in the knowledge that you can leave important decisions in the hands of someone you trust. If you don’t have such arrangements in place then your family may have to go through complicated and time-consuming legal processes just to get the authority to help run your affairs for you. That is the last thing they want at a time when they will already be worried about you and your failing health.
Woman fails to win a share of home where she lived with former partner
A woman has failed to win a share in the home in which she lived with her former partner for 15 years. The couple were not married but the court accepted that they had effectively lived together at the property as husband and wife. The man owned the house before they met. However, she then moved in and lived there until their relationship broke up 15 years later.
During their relationship she had helped him with his business and eventually became a partner. Their income from the business was used to pay the mortgage and for renovations to the property which they carried out together.
When the relationship ended the woman claimed a share in the property on the basis that there was an understanding between them that they owned the property jointly.
However, the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim. That ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal which said the fact that money from the couple’s business was used to pay the mortgage was not sufficient evidence to prove that there was an agreement between them that she should have a beneficial interest in the property.
It is not uncommon for financial disputes to emerge when co-habiting couples separate. Many women believe that a couple who live together as husband and wife have a common law marriage which gives them the same rights as a married couple. This is a myth as there is no such thing as a common law marriage.
The Government recently urged co-habiting couples to draw up living together agreements to protect themselves and help to avoid bitter disputes once the relationship ends. Such agreements may not seem very romantic but they can help reduce disagreements and stress.
New Year prompts surge in divorce inquiries
The New Year is traditionally a time when people take stock of their lives and look to make a fresh start.
Sadly, for many married couples who have been experiencing difficulties in their relationships, it can be a time when they decide the only way forward is for them to separate. Family lawyers always receive a surge in inquiries at this time of year from people wanting to begin divorce proceedings.
It’s a traumatic time for all concerned. As well as the emotional upheaval there are numerous practical matters to consider such as what arrangements will be made for the children and how joint assets will be shared out.
Emotion and bitterness can often cloud issues but both partners will do themselves a big favour if they try to be honest and reasonable right from the outset. It’s not uncommon for people to dig their heels in and complicate matters but it rarely does much good. In the end, the courts will impose a settlement, if necessary, which is fair to both sides.
Each partner should realise that as a general principle, everything they own irrespective of where it came from will be regarded as part of their joint assets to be shared out. The law also works from the starting point that these assets should be shared out equally unless there are good reasons to justify an alternative split.
Many people try to tip the balance in their favour by concealing their assets or squirreling money away in a secret bank account. The other partner can try to counter this financial infidelity by keeping copies of bank statements and similar documents whenever possible. If they suspect that their partner is concealing assets they should inform their solicitor so those assets can be frozen and included in the divorce settlement.
Some people think they can circumvent the system by putting money into their pension but that won’t work either as pensions are now considered as part of the pot to share out.
For most couples, the most valuable asset will be the family home. Sometimes it may have to be sold so the proceeds can be divided; sometimes it’s possible for one party to remain there in return for concessions in other parts of the settlement.
There could be an issue if the family home is in only one partner’s name. If this is the case then your solicitor may need to register a caution against the property so that your partner can’t sell until the divorce proceedings are settled.
Joint bank accounts and credit cards will have to be cancelled and replaced by individual accounts. Wills should be revised as each party makes a clean break and reassesses how they want to provide for their loved ones in the future.
Most couples try to reach amicable arrangements over the children but where this is not possible then mediation may help. A trained mediator can act as an honest broker enabling a couple to overcome stumbling blocks. Mediation can also help couples to remain on good terms, which is the best approach in the long term, especially if children are involved.
If a couple still can’t agree then they may need to go to court. They should realise, however, that a court will always try to do what is best for the child rather than what may seem best for the parents.
It’s unlikely that divorce can ever be easy but couples can save themselves a lot of stress if they are prepared to act reasonably and get professional advice from the beginning to ensure a fair settlement.
Children’s names changed to protect them from abduction
A mother has won the right to change her children’s surnames to reduce the risk of them being abducted by their father. The family court was told that after the couple separated, the father wanted his two children to spend half the year with him in Mexico. The mother said that when she rejected the request, he started to seriously harass her and threatened to take the children away. However, the father then alleged that she had abused the children and that they were also at risk from her new partner.
The mother moved to a refuge. A psychologist gave evidence that the father showed symptoms of a personality disorder and the children were at risk of being harmed if he had contact with them.
The court suspended the father’s contact rights and gave permission for the children’s surnames to be changed to protect them from the risk of abduction. The father appealed but the rulings have been upheld by the High Court. The judge said the father’s threats to take the children had to be taken seriously. They needed stability and would suffer enormous stress if they were abducted so changing their names to reduce the risk would be beneficial for their welfare.
Teenager paralysed in drink drive accident awarded £6.5m
A woman has been awarded £6.5m compensation by the High Court for injuries caused by a hit and run driver. Nikki Buckley was still a teenager when she was hit by a car which mounted the pavement near her home in the West Midlands in 2002. Miss Buckley, who is now 22, sustained spinal injuries which have left her paralysed. She now has only minimal use of her hands and needs round the clock care.
Some of her compensation pay-out will be used to provide specialised equipment and accommodation.
The driver was later jailed for two years in 2002 for driving under the influence of alcohol and for failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
