Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

The Statement of Facts and Grounds for the Judicial Review has been released today by Steve Bolton and Chris Cooper. Here is a link to the document.

https://crowdjustice.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/froala_editor/fies/Clause%2024%20Judicial%20Review%20-%20Statement%20of%20Facts%20and%20Grounds.pdf

Thanks, Rhys for your comment that reinforces my belief, but may apply to only a few, probably the most vulnerable of the "25%"

My eyes are still spinning from the 30 pages of the J.R. statements of fact kindly posted here, thanks to the contributor.

Can we please keep this thread going, even though we are across 2 topic sections? ANYONE ELSE REALISING CARRIED FORWARD PAST LOSSES ARE TO BE EXTINGUISHED by Clause 24?

Chris.

The below important update has just been posted to the Judicial Review Facebook Page by Chris & Steve:

"UPDATE:

Hi all,

Our sincere apologies for the limited updates recently. It has been a very busy few weeks with the priority being to prepare, complete and submit the best possible application for Judicial Review.

Thank you to all of you who provided us with case studies.

If you want more detailed information and an insight into our case, then this can be found in the Statement of Facts and Grounds, which can be downloaded via this link: http://www.propertycoalition.com/letter

This forms part of our application and sets out our case and anticipates some of the points we expect the Government to make in response.

It has been worked on and signed off by Cherie Booth CBE, QC, (the professional name of Cherie Blair) and Conor Quigley QC, who are leaders in the fields of human rights and State aid law respectively. These are the two legal grounds on which our judicial review claim is based.

The Story so far

The legal process has now progressed and our application for judicial review was filed with the Administrative Court in London on 17th February. The application requests the Court’s permission to commence judicial review proceedings in full; this is a preliminary hurdle we need to clear before the substantive challenge can begin.

We expect the Government (specifically, each of HMRC and the Treasury) to respond to our application in due course with what is called an “Acknowledgement of Service”. In its Acknowledgement of Service, a defendant must set out a summary of the grounds on which it intends to contest the application for permission and/or contest the entire claim (depending on the approach the defendant intends to take). We expect the Government to respond aggressively. If they do not respond, the Court will decide the question of permission on the basis of the information that has been provided. In the unlikely (but welcome) event that the Government concedes the claim, it will need to set out how it will remedy the situation, which we have said will require primary legislation to repeal Section 24.

Assuming no extension is granted by the Court, the defendants’ deadline for filing their Acknowledgements of Service with the Court is 16th March – the irony of it being Budget day is not lost on us.

The Government also has what is known as “a duty of candour”, which means that it must be forthcoming with information that might assist the court to understand the Government’s decision-making processes and deal with the issues fairly. We have made various requests for information but none has yet been provided.

The Court will wait for the defendants to file their Acknowledgements of Service before it addresses the question of whether to grant us permission.

At that point, the Court will do one of three things:

1. Grant permission “on the papers” (i.e. without the need for a permission hearing)

The Court would proceed to schedule our claim for a full hearing. At the moment, and if permission is granted, we would expect this substantive hearing to last 2-3 days (although this may change depending on the Government’s response), and for a hearing of that length we will likely have to wait till September, after the Courts’ summer break.

or

2. Schedule a preliminary hearing on permission
This would be a short hearing at which the parties would be invited to make oral submissions to the Court on the question of whether permission should be granted. This can be fitted into the Court’s schedule more quickly – we understand that the wait will probably be in the region of about six weeks.

or

3. Refuse permission on the papers

If permission is refused on the papers, we will have 7 days to request reconsideration and an oral permission hearing. Again, the wait for the hearing would likely be around six weeks. If permission is granted after an oral permission hearing, we are still probably looking at September or later for a substantive hearing.

As you can see, predicting when we might have a definitive answer on permission is difficult, as it depends on the Court’s approach and workload. It might be as early as March or April, if no hearing is required, or could be in the autumn if a hearing is needed.

If we are granted permission then we will launch our next fundraising campaign so we can pre-fund the action.

As the case progresses, we will share relevant information with you as we receive it from the legal team.

Objectives

The primary objective is of course to secure our day(s) in court to make a strong, public challenge to the lawfulness of Section 24.

Beyond that, we are hoping for a positive result but are mindful both that judicial review proceedings are inherently difficult and also that, even if we win, the Government might introduce changes or new measures that are more defensible legally but still unattractive and problematic for hard-working private landlords.

Next Steps

Please keep spreading the word by:

1. Sharing the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/clause24/

2. Asking others to register for the newsletter – accessed here - https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/clause24/ by clicking on the “register for updates via CrowdJustice” link at the top of the page.

Best regards,

Steve Bolton and Chris Cooper"

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "30/11/2015 - 23:14":

Reading some past intellectual postings, then seeing

https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/2/rental-supply-down-says-arla

The rental supply has gone down and rents are increasing. Who would ever have thought that. Truly amazing.

Even the experts like house price crash and vince cable said it shouldn't happen. - But it has. It is. It will.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "26/02/2016 - 14:40":

Chris you fool!

Rents have not gone up and they will not go up. That is not the way the market works...because if you could charge more rent then you would already be charging it.

I know this is true because Jeremy Hunt smurked at me & told me so... and he knows everything about economics and healthcare and you are just a parasitic landlord.

I don't know what I can do to help you Chris...seems you are deranged

Reply to the comment left by "Markb " at "26/02/2016 - 15:37":

I am picturing Jeremy Hunt with a shaved head and garb of a Buddhist monk...

"Do not try to raise your rent, for that is impossible."

"Instead try to raise yourself around the rent... Then you will realise the truth... That there is no rent."

"George Osborne and David Cameron blocked plans to build more social housing because it would 'produce more Labour voters', Nick Clegg has claimed,

According to the former deputy prime minister, the chancellor and prime minister rejected repeated Lib Dem attempts to get more money to build homes for people on low incomes.

Clegg quoted the chancellor and prime minister in an interview with The Independent today as telling him: 'All it does is produce more Labour voters.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/george-osborne-didnt-want-to-build-houses-that-produce-labour-voters-claims-nick-clegg_n_9324920.html

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "26/02/2016 - 17:36":

Too funny!!!!

I'll never be able to look at him again without that picture appearing in my head

You may enjoy reading this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12174983/Boris-Johnson-pulls-ahead-of-George-Osborne-among-grassroots-Conservatives.html

"Boris Johnson pulls ahead of George Osborne among grassroots Conservatives

Exclusive: Grassroots Tories hail Boris Johnson's 'courageous' decision to come out in favour of a Brexit in potentially 'game-changing' moment for party leadership race."

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "26/02/2016 - 14:40":

Sorry to have lost touch with all you are doing, Chris, but Kiribati seems along way from it all and much closer to the horizon. I have written to my MP [Olver Covile] to remind him that he can't rely on the unelectability of Jeremy to ensure him of my Vote. But I have thought of taking a part-share tenancy in an HMO in Osborne's constituency, registering it as my prime residence, and voting him out as soon as possible. How many HMOs are there in his constituency, and how many can part-share a flat as prime residence? How many do we need?