Credit scores put millions of aspiring homeowners at risk Millions of young adults are risk being unable to get a mortgage by damaging their credit rating before they turn 25, according to Amigo research. Two thirds of 18-24-year olds who know their credit score currently sit in the ‘very poor’ category of 0-560 points outlined by credit reference agency Experian. Common reasons for poor credit among those in their mid-20s are late and missed bill payments, unauthorised overdrafts and credit card rejections. Of those under 25, 12% admit to missing a monthly phone bill, 11% say they’ve missed a credit payment, while ten% have fallen into unauthorised overdraft. Worryingly, a third of people in this age category claimed that they were unaware that having no credit history at all could affect their chances of getting a mortgage. Industry research claims half of UK adults are likely to be refused credit at some point. Poor credit ratings are not confined to lower earners either, with those earning more than £60,000 a year averaging worse scores than those earning between £10,000 and £60,000. Glen Crawford, CEO at Amigo Loans, said: “When it comes to using credit, from the get go, borrowers need to be aware that keeping up a good credit score is absolutely key to securing a healthy financial future. It’s easy when you’re just starting out to slip-up on credit card payments or falling behind with paying bills but these common blunders can cost you in the future.” Source link

Subletting council tenant found guilty A student who illegally sublet her Stonebridge flat while studying and working in Bristol has had the book thrown at her in court. Kusheema Nurse did not tell Brent Housing Partnership, which manages council housing on behalf of the Brent Council, that she had moved out of her council flat on Mordaunt Road after gaining a place at university in Bristol to study Law. Twenty six year old Ms Nurse was given the one bedroom flat by the council in August 2010 – two months after secretly starting a part time job 120 miles away in Bristol.   In June 2014 Nurse’s sub-tenant approached BHP to complain about being evicted without notice and told us that he had been renting the property from Ms Nurse since April 2011. Although she had not given him a tenancy agreement or receipts for his rent payments, he had redecorated the entire flat at his own expense. An investigation by the council’s Fraud Team found that Ms Nurse had started her Law degree at the University of the West of England in Bristol in September 2011 and had been employed in part time jobs in Bristol between 2010 and 2013. Further investigation fouund that a young woman was rescued from the flat by the Fire Brigade in February 2014 after a small fire broke out. The woman – a friend of the subtenant – did not know Ms Nurse, who failed to report the fire to BHP. When interviewed under caution and asked for an explanation, Ms Nurse chose not to comment. She was prosecuted at Harrow Crown Court for offences under the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 and the Fraud Act 2006.  Nurse claimed in court that she travelled to Bristol on a daily basis and continued to live full time at her Mordaunt Road flat.  The jury did not believe her and found her guilty, with the judge sentencing her to 130 hours of community service, adjourned for three months to allow her to take her final university exams. It’s hoped that the prosecution – Brent’s first under the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act – will serve as a warning to other council tenants who are illegally profiting from their social housing.   The Fraud Team works closely with BHP, which has recently launched a crackdown on tenants thought to be subletting. As part of the campaign both BHP staff and residents are being asked to be vigilant. BHP is now in the process of repossessing the property from Ms Nurse. Cllr Harbi Farah, Brent Council’s Lead Member for Housing, said: “Subletting social housing isn’t just selfish – it’s illegal. It clogs up desperately needed accommodation while lining the pockets of people who falsely claim to be in need.  Brent Council and BHP will be relentless in our pursuit of fraudsters like Ms Nurse, ensuring that council homes go to those who have the right to live in one.” Source link

Willmott Dixon has confirmed that it is to build new student accommodation for Royal Holloway, University of London. Above: The student homes in Egham Willmott Dixon has been involved with the project in Surrey for more than a year, helping to develop the plans with architect Stride Treglown. The contract was procured under Scape’s major works framework. The project provides rooms for 621 students in 56 three- and four-storey townhouses that will provide housing for eight or 12 students each. Each townhouse will have social and study spaces, receptions and laundries. The new accommodation will allow Royal Holloway to guarantee rooms on its North Campus to first year undergraduates. The project forms part of a masterplan to develop Royal Holloway’s historic estate into a campus that better meets the needs of students. Director of estates Michael Berry said: “This provides an exciting new model for student accommodation to serve Royal Holloway for years to come. Townhouses encourage communal living, with shared facilities and common areas, and our development among mature trees will include green spaces and sheltered paths connecting residences to the main campus.” The Royal Holloway project follows similar schemes by Willmott Dixon, which includes remodelling Mardol House in Shrewsbury to create student accommodation for the new university, and new halls of residence at Moulton College in Northamptonshire.  Charlie Scherer, chief operating officer of Willmott Dixon Housing said, “This is an excellent template for providing student accommodation and plays well into our housebuilding skill-sets.”   This article was published on 20 Apr 2016 (last updated on 20 Apr 2016). Source link

Wates Living Space Homes has moved on site for an £8.4m affordable housing development in Hull. Above: Work on site The development of 86 homes for Hull City Council is on the site of the former Milldane flats in Orchard Park. There will be nine one-bedroom and 49 two-bedroom houses and 28 one-bedroom apartments. They are designed by architect Croft Goode. Building work is expected to finish by the end of 2017. Wates was awarded the contract via the Orchard Park lead developer framework. Wates Living Space Homes has already built 316 one- and two-bedroom extra care apartments across three sites on behalf of Hull City Council and social housing landlord Riverside. Mick Holling, business director of Wates Living Space Homes, said: “Our delivery of the former Milldane site is an acknowledgment of our team’s expertise and the success we have had in striking a balance between creating high quality homes, efficiently, and furthermore doing so whilst keeping the community at the centre of our work.” The 22-storey Milldane tower block was demolished in 2013.       This article was published on 1 Sep 2016 (last updated on 1 Sep 2016). Source link

A recent case suggests the value of claims can be amended after limitations have expired. Digby Hebbard and Douglas Simpson explain. Above: Digby Hebbard (left) is a partner and Douglas Simpson (right) is an associate in the construction team at Fladgate LLP Given the nature of construction projects and their legacy, it is fairly common for claims arising from such projects to be tight up against expiry of limitation periods.  You may have experience of this, and be used to trawling back through historical documents to ascertain the relevant chronology.  When was the contract signed? Was it executed as a deed or a contract? When was the defect discovered? These are typical queries for limitation. It would be fair to say that the primary focus for limitation purposes is the cause of action, i.e. is there a claim or not, ahead of the value of the claim.  Indeed, if a claim is not time-barred by limitation, the value of the claim often will change over time as matters progress, further information becomes available and expert quantum input is involved. You may also be familiar with “protective” proceedings – claims commenced to avoid expiry of limitation.  In these instances, it would be relatively common for the value of the claim to change after the date proceedings were commenced.  Not surprisingly, it has been argued by defendants that purported increases to the claim value constitute new claims and are therefore time-barred. A recent case in the Technology & Construction Court demonstrates the Court’s approach to this novel argument (Glenluce Fishing Co. Ltd -v- Watermota  Ltd [2016] EWCH 1807 (TCC)).  In this case, the claimant issued a claim for breach of contract shortly before the expiry of the limitation period.  The claimant subsequently applied to amend the claim to increase the value of its claim (from £69,000 to £162,000). By the time of the application, the limitation period had expired. The defendant argued that because limitation had expired, an amendment to introduce a new head of claim outside the limitation period should not be permitted. The Court allowed the amendment.  The judge noted that different considerations applied to the question of whether a claim had been ‘brought’ within the limitation period from the issue of whether a claim could be amended outside the limitation period. The judge said that these considerations should be kept separate:  the authorities dealing with whether a claim has been ‘brought’ within the limitation period did not “justify a root and branch revision of the approach to be adopted to an application to amend”. The Court therefore adopted a ‘traditional’ approach to the application to amend and allowed the amendment because, whilst the increase in the quantum was significant, it did not introduce a new cause of action and did not prejudice the defendant (and the claimant had paid the difference between its original filing fee and that which would have been payable for the higher sum – filing fees are directly related to the value of the claim).  The judge considered that it was irrelevant that the claimant had not done all that it reasonably could to quantify its claim inside the limitation period. Thus, on the issue of whether the value of a claim can be amended after limitation has expired, the position would appear to be that it can – this could be through the addition of new heads of claim or adjustment of the value of existing heads.  The threshold is that the change must arise from the same or substantially the same facts as stated in the Claim Form: it cannot be a new cause of action.  The Court will also consider any prejudice to the defendant were the amendment permitted, as against the prejudice to the claimant were it not. Be aware though that if it was found that the value had been deliberately understated when the claim was issued (perhaps to avoid paying a higher filing fee)  then this might be an abuse of process – which could be relevant to the decision of whether to allow a later amendment of the sum claimed. From a practical perspective, for potential claimants in dispute resolution proceedings who are unlikely to know the true value of their claim until after the limitation period, it is suggested that: the sum claimed should be described along the lines of “not less than £x” in the Claim Form (or equivalent); the claimant should thereafter maintain transparency as regards any developments in the value of the claim, to negate any inference of abuse of process; the Claim Form should clearly make out all causes of action, to avoid arguments about whether new heads of claim are connected with new causes of action; and the claimant should allow for payment of a supplement to the original filing fee.       About the authors: Digby Hebbard is a partner and Douglas Simpson an associate in the construction team at Fladgate LLP     This article was published on 10 Aug 2016 (last updated on 10 Aug 2016). Source link