OV9

Sundayjumper wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 4:00 pm I'm seeing a catch-22 type situation with the sale. The costs (which are significant) need to be paid before the lease can be reinstated to allow the sale. I can't imagine the solicitor will commit his own money without the sale being locked in, which it isn't until the contracts are exchanged, which can't happen until after he's paid the money.

I don't think there's anything to stop the neighbour simply refusing to exchange contracts on the sale after the lease is reinstated ? Even if the money is a loan to him with short strict terms and repayment on demand or whatever it'll be a nightmare for them to enforce because the neighbour is so impossible to deal with. And that's even assuming they manage to agree a price in the first place. Which as Gavster says, will be extremely hard because the neighbour will be convinced it's worth at least twice the real market value while the solicitor will be wanting to buy for absolute rock bottom below market value.

This process is all bit odd to me (but I may well have not followed all of it and am not a property lawyer). If the breaches of the lease are rectified then I would have thought that effectively you end up at square one with a compliant lease so I don't follow the conditionality of being required to sell it (not that having this condition doesn't make complete practical sense, I'm just uncertain of the judge's power to require it). I assume its because the only way to fund the costs order is from the proceeds of sale?

I guess the issue is that you are not likely to find a buyer for a lease subject to forfeiture so remediable action has to come first - but then see my point above around the lease then being in compliance. I would have thought you then have a compliant lease, debt claim against tenant for payment of costs, failure to pay, declaration of bankruptcy - court appoints official receiver and receiver sells the property.

Perhaps there is a costs reimbursement provision in the lease vis a vis the freeholder and as a result the lease is in breach until the costs are paid. Which then does indeed make the whole thing quite circular and a bit of a gordian knot.

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm Got the frame for the garage finished

And that’s probably it for a while as I’ll be trying to make my own flooring which requires dry wood.
I’ve stacked all the wood and wrapped it with a tarp and stuck a dehumidifier in - hopefully it’ll be ready in a few weeks.
Wood from a sawmill is wavy, when the bandsaw transitions from soft clear wood to a dense knot the blade deflects causing a bump. Commercially a 4 sided thicknesser is used to shape the 4 sides simultaneously into finished timber. The homeowner version only does one side at a time. You create a flat surface with the planer and then stick the opposite face in the thicknesser to get a uniform dimension.

We opted to collect the machine because it’s sensitive in terms of set up so would rather it not get bashed about on a lorry and I got a lesson on how to use it.

Got it all set up in thicknessing mode here

Jokingly refer to it as the money printer because you put crap worthless wood in and get nice valuable stuff out the other end

Everyone’s going to be getting cutting boards and cheese boards for Christmas

Very jealous of this, Ive wanted a thicknesser, a perfect finish isn’t needed, just so I am not scribing in a piece and then spend 6 hours with a sander removing the fine edge. Issue isn’t cost, it’s I have nowhere to put the thing the few times a year I will use it.

The only reliable boards I can ever find in a decent width is scaffold boards and although good structurally they suck with no character.

Dave!

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm Commercially a 4 sided thicknesser is used to shape the 4 sides simultaneously into finished timber. The homeowner version only does one side at a time. You create a flat surface with the planer and then stick the opposite face in the thicknesser to get a uniform dimension.

I wouldn't have the time available to justify one, but what a fabulous tool to own (and as Dave highlights - have the room to house).

GG. wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:28 pm I would have thought you then have a compliant lease, debt claim against tenant for payment of costs, failure to pay, declaration of bankruptcy - court appoints official receiver and receiver sells the property.

That's not quite how it would work - if they remedied the breaches so the lease was no longer subject to forfeiture and Gav just had a costs claim, that would be a straight debt claim. If they didn't have the money to pay it (which they could raise with a mortgage against the property, for instance) then Gav could obtain a charging order over the property and then enforce it with an order for sale. Gav would then sell the property rather than it being dealt with by a receiver or the court; the order for sale would be what gives him the grounds and locus to do so.

Like you, I assume the order must be due to costs and if they are already owed from previous hearings and substantial that would be sufficient grounds to bring the order for sale forward I guess.

Jobbo wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:50 am

GG. wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:28 pm I would have thought you then have a compliant lease, debt claim against tenant for payment of costs, failure to pay, declaration of bankruptcy - court appoints official receiver and receiver sells the property.

That's not quite how it would work - if they remedied the breaches so the lease was no longer subject to forfeiture and Gav just had a costs claim, that would be a straight debt claim. If they didn't have the money to pay it (which they could raise with a mortgage against the property, for instance) then Gav could obtain a charging order over the property and then enforce it with an order for sale. Gav would then sell the property rather than it being dealt with by a receiver or the court; the order for sale would be what gives him the grounds and locus to do so.

Like you, I assume the order must be due to costs and if they are already owed from previous hearings and substantial that would be sufficient grounds to bring the order for sale forward I guess.

Relief from forfeiture is only granted if they allow the (full) survey to prepare a schedule of dilapidations and pay the costs, so the costs need to be paid before they can get their lease back. From what I understand the current solicitors are offering to pay the costs subject to a buyer having started the conveyancing process - it's not enfornce in the court order.

From my solicitor: "Of course any buyer of the flat will be made aware of the Schedule of Dilapidations then in place (assuming the [defendants] comply with point 1 above) and the then demanded past insurance and rent due plus the costs of the Dilapidations report and any legal costs accruing as a result. The buyer will need to agree with the [defendants] that such sums will be discharged upon completion and we will have obtained undertakings from the [defendants] solicitors to protect you in that regard also."

Obviously, this lends credence to the idea that the solicitor wants it for himself, because he's one of the few people who has the guts to take on such a tangled project. If the solicitor can convince the neighbours to clear their property for the survey, then he might be thinking that it should be in the bag for him. However, the property in its current condition (and with costs orders deducated) is worth around half of what my neighbours believe its worth to be - I am doubtful that they can reach an agreement on a sale price.

mik wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 7:47 am

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm Commercially a 4 sided thicknesser is used to shape the 4 sides simultaneously into finished timber. The homeowner version only does one side at a time. You create a flat surface with the planer and then stick the opposite face in the thicknesser to get a uniform dimension.

I wouldn't have the time available to justify one, but what a fabulous tool to own (and as Dave highlights - have the room to house).

Very jealous of that, I have alway wanted a planer/thicknesser, it's one of the most underrated woodwoking machines IMO. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but the idea of being able to perfectly machine wood to the precise dimensions needed is <chefs kiss>

Gavster wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:28 am

Jobbo wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:50 am

GG. wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:28 pm I would have thought you then have a compliant lease, debt claim against tenant for payment of costs, failure to pay, declaration of bankruptcy - court appoints official receiver and receiver sells the property.

That's not quite how it would work - if they remedied the breaches so the lease was no longer subject to forfeiture and Gav just had a costs claim, that would be a straight debt claim. If they didn't have the money to pay it (which they could raise with a mortgage against the property, for instance) then Gav could obtain a charging order over the property and then enforce it with an order for sale. Gav would then sell the property rather than it being dealt with by a receiver or the court; the order for sale would be what gives him the grounds and locus to do so.

Like you, I assume the order must be due to costs and if they are already owed from previous hearings and substantial that would be sufficient grounds to bring the order for sale forward I guess.

Relief from forfeiture is only granted if they allow the (full) survey to prepare a schedule of dilapidations and pay the costs, so the costs need to be paid before they can get their lease back. From what I understand the current solicitors are offering to pay the costs subject to a buyer having started the conveyancing process - it's not enfornce in the court order.

GG and I were pondering how the court order came to be made in the terms that it has been - we're not suggesting there's anything wrong with it. It's your costs so far that I'm referring to specifically. The court may have made the order they did to save you having to go back for another order later; what you obtained amounts to a conditional order for sale.

Ahhh okay, understood (sort of ) the specifics of all these legal processes does get bloomin' confusing.

Absolutely fair - I think your description is pretty good but it still has two solicitors wondering how the order came to be made as it was

I don't think it was coined about lawyers but there's an old idiom about putting two people in a room and ending up with three opinions...

Would it have anything to do with the fact this is two seperate claims? E.g. claim one was declaratory relief for breach of the lease. Claim two is possession. However the costs from claim one are rolled into claim two.

Jobbo wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:01 am ...putting two people in a room and ending up with three opinions...

Like what happens on one-make forums if you ask what the correct oil is

Gavster wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:23 am Would it have anything to do with the fact this is two seperate claims? E.g. claim one was declaratory relief for breach of the lease. Claim two is possession. However the costs from claim one are rolled into claim two.

Seems logical. It's a good thing the judge decided to join them together like that.

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm thicknesser

Yet it makes wood thinner, not thicker.

Always thought that was as stupid name!

unzippy wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:58 pm

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm thicknesser

Yet it makes wood thinner, not thicker.

Always thought that was as stupid name!

Well, not really, as it derives from thickness.

A Thinnerer ?

A Thinnernerner ?

A Thinneriser ?

A Dethickessarator ?

A Table Plane ?

Dave!

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 2:13 pm

unzippy wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:58 pm

Mito Man wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2025 9:58 pm thicknesser

Yet it makes wood thinner, not thicker.

Always thought that was as stupid name!

Well, not really, as it derives from thickness.

That’s what zippy said - it’s stupid.

The purpose of the machine is to alter the thickness. Use of the term thinness for the smallest dimension of a piece of wood is not a common way to say it. Although thickness planer or something would be more to my liking.

mik wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 2:28 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 2:13 pm

unzippy wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:58 pm

Yet it makes wood thinner, not thicker.

Always thought that was as stupid name!

Well, not really, as it derives from thickness.

That’s what zippy said - it’s stupid.

How do you describe thickness then?

There are many seemingly stupid things in the English language. One that's always puzzled me is that we might say, if something is highly unlikely to happen:

"there's a very slim chance of that." or we might say "fat chance".

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2025 2:49 pm How do you describe thickness then?

Zips said it was stupid.

You said it derives from thickness.

As thick = stupid, then that's like you saying it derives from stupidness.

ergo - you are saying the same thing.

I'm more upset that I don't get any gammon from my hammer.

Thicknesser, planers and jointers all mean different things in America vs here which makes it more odd and confusing, especially if you're researching them and watching youtube videos on what to look out for.

From Wiki:
"Planer" is the normal term in the UK and Australia for what is called a "jointer" in North America, where the former term refers exclusively to a thickness planer.

The UK terminology is correct because in America this sort of machine is called a thickness planer

However that kind of machine doesn't plane at all and merely adjusts thickness
Stooopid yanks.