Author: Karen

A Guide to Management Companies

/ Karen / Leave a comment

pexels-photo-127611

If you have bought a property such as an apartment or a house within a new development, there are likely to be common areas for you and other home owners to enjoy. 

These common areas may be as practical as a lift in an apartment block or alternatively could be a communal green or garden in a housing development.

But who is responsible for the common areas contained in your property?  Here’s all you need to know…

Who is in charge of maintaining the common areas?

The upkeep of these common areas is organised by a Management Company.  This is a company which is set up by the developer of the apartment building or housing development.  Each property within the apartment block/housing development will have one share each in the Management Company.

The Management Company will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the common areas and insurance covering these areas. The Management Company will meet annually in order to allow residents to address issues of concern such as litter or noise.   It is worthwhile attending these meetings as there may also be discussion on issues which may affect the costs that the Company incurs each year – for example, costs relating to the frequency of works such as weeding or window washing, or the replacement of items of large expenditure such as lifts or remote control gates and doors.

Who pays for the maintenance of the common areas?

The Management Company is funded by way of a ‘service charge’ which you, along with the other residents of the apartment block/development, will be obliged to pay annually.  It is important that you account for this expense when considering whether a property is affordable for you.  The service charge can be substantial, especially where there are lifts to maintain or Block Insurance to pay in respect of an apartment block.

What happens if I don’t pay my service charge?

As with any other company, the non-payment of service charge can result in the Management Company failing which can have severe ramifications when you either attempt to get insurance or ultimately sell the property.  This can be a particular problem in the case of apartments. While a well-run Management Company can be of great benefit, when they cease to function, homeowners can find themselves greatly out of pocket and inconvenienced trying to have a new Management Company set up.  It is important that you should consider this risk when deciding if a property is really for you.

RFlinnRuth Flinn is a Solicitor in the Property Law Department of Francis Hanna & Co Solicitors. She is experienced in all areas of residential conveyancing. For more information on management companies, please contact us below or contact Ruth on rflinn@fhanna.co.uk 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

LIFE BITE: Other explanation for alleged Shaken Baby Syndrome highlighted in recent England case.

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280A recent case in England has highlighted the importance of fully and thoroughly investigating cases of suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.

‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ is one of many names given to an injury normally termed as ‘Abusive Head Trauma’.

This is an injury which is normally caused by someone (most often a parent or other caregiver) forcefully shaking a child or striking a child’s head against a surface.   It is presumed that many cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome occur when the caregiver cannot get the baby to stop crying and, out of frustration or anger, shakes the baby.   Unfortunately, this shaking can have the effect of causing brain damage to a very young child.

Last year, a young couple in England, Craig Stillwell and Carla Andrews, had their baby daughter Effie removed from their care for almost 8 months after Social Services were concerned that an injury akin to Shaken Baby Syndrome had been caused to Effie’s brain.

Effie collapsed last August 2016 aged five months and at the hospital, Mr Stillwell was arrested by the police and accused of causing grievous bodily harm to her.   The local Council took the case to the Family Court, alleged a non-accidental injury had been caused to Effie and they sought an Order for her to be placed in care.  Effie was placed in foster care whilst the case was investigated and her parents were only allowed to see her three times a week for 90 minutes in a supervised environment.

It was only when Effie’s mother Miss Andrews researched what could have caused the bleeding in her daughter’s brain and after subsequent medical tests, that it was revealed that Effie suffered from a rare medical condition known as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV (EDS).   This is a condition which causes “thin and translucent skin, easy bruising, vascular and arterial rupture”.

Upon discovering this alternative cause of the injuries to Effie, the Court case was withdrawn and Effie was returned home to her parent’s care.

Miss Andrews told the media that it was “amazing” to have her daughter back home but that she and her partner had been treated “like monsters” at the hospital and that the whole ordeal was “heartbreaking”.

The couple were not going to take any action against the local Council but wanted to raise awareness of the condition.   Miss Andrews said: “I feel bitter towards the hospital. I know they have to do their job but they should’ve gone about it differently.”  Mr Stillwell added: “We want to get the awareness out there that these connected tissue disorders do exist.  They may be invisible but they can cause a lot of damage and they do mimic child abuse and shaken baby syndromes.”

Unfortunately, the Courts here in Northern Ireland see cases of suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.  The above example highlights how important it is in each case to explore all other possible causes of the injury and to ensure that there is minimal delay in collecting medical evidence from experts in this field.
If you require any further information on Shaken Baby Syndrome or non accidental injury, please feel free to contact is confidentially here

LIFE BITE: Loss of airline to Isle of Man may leave TT fans out of pocket

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280The Real Road Racing season is almost upon us and which inevitably means the return of the popular Isle of Man TT races which take place every May/June on the island.

The TT is always a busy time for the Isle of Man as the sport brings and influx of bike racers and their families and friends to the island to enjoy the sport.

Unfortunately, there have been reports in the media that the provider of flights between Belfast and Douglas, Citywing, have gone into administration leaving travel plans in disarray and race fans out of pocket.

While another airline has stepped in and taken on this route, many travellers are still likely to have suffered financial loss in any forward booking they had made via Citywing.

While you scramble to make alternative travel arrangements, it may be worth knowing that under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you may apply to your credit card provider for a refund of the costs of any flights you had purchased provided they cost over £100.00.

While bookings on debit cards do not have the same statutory protection, many of the larger debit card providers are part of a voluntary scheme called ‘Chargeback’ which may offer you similar protection.  The Chargeback scheme may also be used for credit card payments under £100.00.

Anyone affected by the administration of Citywing should contact their credit/debit card providers and notify them of your claim to get the process started.

Life Law NI would like to wish all attending the Isle of Man TT races this year a safe and enjoyable trip.

LIFE BITE: Wife refused divorce as unreasonable behaviour claimed is “expected in a marriage”

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280The wife of a multimillionaire farmer has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision made by a lower Court to refuse her a divorce after the Judge hearing her divorce ruled that her husband’s behaviour was to be “expected in a marriage”.

Tini Owens, 65, married her husband Hugh Owens, 78, in January 1978.  In November 2012, Mrs Owens, had a brief fling with another man, which ended in August 2013.

In her divorce petition, Mrs Owens stated that her husband had behaved unreasonably in his “continued beratement” of her.  She outlined his conduct in her petition,  which included criticising her in front of their housekeeper, arguing with her in an airport shop, not speaking to her during a meal and making her pick up bits of cardboard in the garden.  She submitted in her divorce petition that this behaviour amounted to unreasonable behaviour.

Mr Owens has to date claimed that he had forgiven his wife for her “misguided” fling in 2012, and told the Court that he wanted to remain married to his wife as they “still have a few years of old age together”.

The Judge hearing the divorce, Judge Robin Tolson QC, concluded that Mr Owens’  behaviour towards his wife had not been unreasonable and refused her divorce petition last year.

Judge Tolson QC described the farmer’s attitude as “old school” and stated that Mrs Owens’ allegations against her husband were “exaggerated” and “at best flimsy”.  The Judge further claimed that the conduct described by Mrs Owens were “minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage” and “an exercise in scraping the barrel”.

Judge Tolson also found that Mrs Owens was “more sensitive than most wives” and that she had “exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations to a significant degree”.

Mrs Owens claimed that as a result of the Court’s refusal to grant her a divorce, she was effectively “locked in” to her marriage with Mr Owens. She claimed that it was unfair that under current law she would have to wait five years before being allowed a divorce without her husband’s consent.

Mrs Owen’s legal representatives have submitted that it is unreasonable to expect her to stay in the marriage, with her barrister adding: “There doesn’t have to be violence, or threats of violence, or gambling or drinking or shouting. There is cumulative effect of what may be regarded as inconsequential conduct, which may justify a finding that it is unreasonable to expect her to stay with him.”

Mr Owens legal representative told the Court that the initial divorce Judge had been “entitled to reject the wife’s case”. ”

The Court of Appeal judges are expected to reserve their decision on Mrs Owens’ appeal and give their ruling at a later date.

For more information on the grounds for divorce here in Northern Ireland, you can read our earlier blog piece ‘Divorce – What are the Grounds?’ or contact us here.

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

LIFE BITE: Police bring civil claims against Robbery victim

/ Karen / Leave a comment

apple-150579_1280A man who had his car stolen after being held at knifepoint in his home has told the BBC that he feels he has been re-victimised by three personal injury claims made by police officers following the incident.

 

During a police chase following the armed burglary, Terence Duffin’s car was written off and he has now received civil claims from three police officers, even though he was not in the car.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have said that the claims are private matters between the individual officers and the insurance companies involved.

The incident occurred at the end of August 2016 when two armed men forced their way into Mr Duffin’s house in Newcastle, County Down.

“They pushed me into the kitchen and proceeded to pull out carving knives,” he said.  “The house was ransacked, items were stolen and they took my car.”

After reporting the matter to the police, Mr Duffin’s car was traced and followed to Belfast.  He said; “It was on the Dunbar Link that the men rammed the police car and it wasn’t until the Seven Mile Straight in Antrim that they were actually apprehended by police who had set up a road block.”

Mr Duffin said he was left traumatised by the theft but that things were made worse when he was notified of the claims by his insurance company.  He said his no-claims bonus was likely to be affected and he feared his car insurance premiums could increase as a result.   The PSNI have acknowledged this may be the case.

Jennifer Young, a Personal Injury lawyer in the firm of Francis Hanna & Co Solicitors, advises that this type of claim was a police officer’s only option if they were injured when on duty by an uninsured vehicle:-

“Although the victim is entirely innocent and someone else has stolen the vehicle, their insurance may go up as a result of a claim under their policy – that is simply the nature of car insurance,”

Ms Young explained why the injured officers would not be able to claim on the PSNI’s insurance policy:-

“The police officers would have to show that their employers have been at fault in some way or that they’ve caused the accident, or that they failed to put in adequate safeguards in place to protect them when they were on duty,”

“In this situation, the accident was caused as a result of the negligent driving of the uninsured driver who has stolen the vehicle and so in that case a claim against the PSNI wouldn’t be likely to get off the ground as there is no negligence on their part.”

If you would like further information on how personal injury claims work, please contact us here or leave your comments below. 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨