Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Nearly Legal

@nearlylegal.co.uk

8.6K followers 1.2K following 3.9K posts

Solicitor. Done housing law since 2006. The Guardian says top 5 for squalor. Legal Aid Housing Lawyer of 2018. Co-author of Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. ‘Not an academic authority’ - Judge Carr. https://nearlylegal.co.uk

nearlylegal.co.uk

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 8h

I have little idea who any of these people are, but having a journalist call this article an 'excellent read' by a 'tremendous writer' when, having read it, it is terribly written and a tedious read, is where you question their judgement.

Sally Jenkins @sallyjenx.bsky.social · 10h

Ratio me. Please. It's a badge of honor. If you don't like a link, go follow some chicken-heart who needs the approval of the thought-police. Caitlin Flanagan of @theatlantic.com is a tremendous writer and this piece is an excellent read. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

Don’t Bet Against Bari Weiss

The new editor in chief of CBS News triumphs over her critics.

www.theatlantic.com

2 10

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 8h

I've been thinking about this since your piece, but I'm afraid I am unconvinced. I can see the argument succeeding before a first instance DJ, but not, I think, further.

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 8h

Yes, sure, former tenants,, but is it in connection with the tenancy? Tenant has terminated the tenancy.

And also, this is a statutory penalty, not a purported contractual one. On what basis - absent from express wording - does the TFA disapply the DFRA?

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 13h

Definitely autumnal here…

1 9

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

For some of them, definitely not ;-)

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

I.. But... What.. Why...

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

There are a few councils with private sector spin off companies.

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention on Human Rights, which is one reason (amongst many others) why it wouldn't work.

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

Yes, albeit complicated by the council owning the properties, and owning the landlord company.

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

Mate, you were arguing compulsory purchase. Also A1 P1 extends to use of property, not just ownership.

1 1

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

*why this is an exclusive

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

the estates were slated for redevelopment (hence the right to buy leaseholders of the flats had been bought out).

The grim bit is that the LA has had to deal with competing housing needs: relatively cheap private tenancies v the dire need for temporary accommodation for those owed the homeless duty

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

I’m not sure who this is an ‘exclusive’. Local press has been running the story for months. Nor is it a ‘legal loophole’ - the landlord is a private company (albeit owned by the council). The tenancies were always intended to be of limited term, because…

www.theguardian.com/society/2025...

Revealed: Labour-run council using legal loophole to serve families with no-fault evictions

Exclusive: London council created an arm’s-length body to manage some of its housing stock

www.theguardian.com

5 8 13

Nearly Legal @nearlylegal.co.uk · 1d

That is… not how compulsory purchase works. And would certainly fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights if they changed the rules to do that.