(01420) 565310
(01420) 562782
instructions@painsmith.co.uk
Painsmith Solicitors Limited trading as Painsmith Solicitors, Director: Marveen Smith. Registered No. 07617210.
Website designed and built by Bluebit Ltd
Emma qualified as a solicitor in 2010 after completing her academic training at Bournemouth University and the University of Law, Guildford.
After undertaking her training contract at a large firm on the south coast she began her career with the same firm before accepting a position with PainSmith Solicitors in November 2012.
Emma specialises in all aspects of property litigation and can assist in resolving most disputes, regularly acting for landlords and land owners in connection with dilapidations disputes, forfeiture and possession claims, land registration disputes, building and boundary disputes, and recovery of arrears and other debts.
Emma is also able to draft up to date tenancy documentation, being fully conversant with all relevant requirements and guidance that applies to this heavily regulated and changing area. She has been praised for her ability to quickly understand her clients’ objectives and for offering commercial, pragmatic advice in a straightforward manner.
David Whitney is a solicitor and mediator. Prior to joining PainSmith five years ago he was a Partner in a West London practice. He has practised in the field of landlord and tenant law for about 20 years and has over the last 15 years developed a specialism in long residential leasehold work. His work encompasses dealing with all aspects of landlord and tenant including dilapidations claims, repossessions, enfranchisement, lease extensions, RTM applications and service charge disputes to name a few. In the past 12 months alone David has assisted over 200 hundred flat owners to either purchase their freehold or extend their lease. David understands the, often, competing interests of differing parties and prides himself on giving clients pragmatic and commercial advice. David also sits as a fee-paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on the Southern Region and as a member of its mediation panel.
Laura graduated from the University of Portsmouth in 2013 with a degree in Law with Business. This year, Laura also completed the Legal Practice Course.
Prior to joining PainSmith Solicitors, Laura worked for a local council. She has the experience and knowledge to confidently handle her own caseload across a range of property matters and uses her understanding of business to ensure that she produces practical commercial solutions to client’s problems.
Richard came to PainSmith in August 2011 as a Paralegal after graduating with a degree in law from the University of Sheffield. Whilst working for PainSmith he completed the Legal Practice Course at weekends completed a training contract at the firm and has been taken on by the firm as a fully qualified Solicitor. After receiving considerable training provided by PainSmith, Richard joined the legal helpline and has been one of the advisers on the helpline for over four years.
He has over five years of experience in Landlord and Tenant law and his normal work load ranges from case handling of possession matters, deposit disputes, drafting of tenancy agreements, advising on HMO properties and debt and disrepair claims. He is experienced in lengthy and complex litigation and settlement negotiations.
David Whitney is a solicitor and mediator. Prior to joining PainSmith five years ago he was a Partner in a West London practice. He has practised in the field of landlord and tenant law for about 20 years and has over the last 15 years developed a specialism in long residential leasehold work. His work encompasses dealing with all aspects of landlord and tenant including dilapidations claims, repossessions, enfranchisement, lease extensions, RTM applications and service charge disputes to name a few. In the past 12 months alone David has assisted over 200 hundred flat owners to either purchase their freehold or extend their lease. David understands the, often, competing interests of differing parties and prides himself on giving clients pragmatic and commercial advice. David also sits as a fee-paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on the Southern Region and as a member of its mediation panel.
Marveen Smith was one of the founders of PainSmith Solicitors in 2001 and has been the only Principal of PainSmith Solicitors a niche firm who are specialists in property law since 2006. Marveen has a background in accountancy and tax; forging a second career in law by qualifying as a Solicitor before starting her own practice. As well as working in her legal practice daily Marveen is one of the trainers for ARLA and other organisations presenting legal courses throughout the country; giving presentations at regional meetings for ARLA; and at seminars for landlords. Marveen has made regular appearances on Money Box for Radio 4 and Watchdog where she endeavoured to balance the one sided view of letting agents that can be presented by the media, as well as disseminating information to enable landlords to act in a more professional capacity. Marveen was the first person to establish a legal helpline for landlords and agents; and to offer both standard and bespoke documents designed specifically for the lettings industry. Today PainSmith offers a wide choice of legal documents to satisfy the requirements of both relocation companies, letting agents and landlords.
Happily ever after………
As shown in the previous blog, many issues can arise when couples purchase a property together. With this in mind, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v Kernott provides some clarification to the law where an unmarried couple purchase a house together in both names but later separate and claim different shares.
The facts of this case were as follows. Ms Jones and Mr Kernott bought 39 Badger Hall Avenue in joint names in 1985 with the proceeds of Ms Jones’ sale of her mobile home and an endowment mortgage. The two parties contributed fairly equally to the household expenses and lived there with their two children together until October 1993 when Mr Kernott moved out of the property. From this point onwards he made no further contributions either to the mortgage or upkeep of the property, or as maintenance and support for the children.
In 1995 they put 39 Badger Hall Avenue on the market for £69,995 but did not find a purchaser. They then cashed in a joint life insurance policy and Mr Kermott used his share as deposit on a property which he purchased in May 1996.
In 2006, Mr Kernott contacted Ms Jones to claim a share of 39 Badger Hall Avenue and subsequently proceedings were brought to determine their respective shares. As they had made no agreement as to what shares each should have in the property the courts were left to look at the parties’ conduct to see what conclusions could be made. It was agreed that when they purchased the property they intended it to belong to each of them in equal shares. The deliberations hinged on the question of whether the parties’ intentions in respect of the property had changed when Mr Kernott moved out after eight years. The court found that their intentions had changed and based this on the fact that from the point that Mr Kermott moved out, Ms Jones covered all payments relating to 39 Badger Hall Avenue. They also noted that this had enabled Mr Kermott to purchase his own property which it was agreed Ms Jones had no interest in. The court found that Ms Jones was entitled to 90% of the beneficial interest and Mr Kermott to 10%, which was calculated on the basis of each being entitled to half until 1995 and Ms Jones being entitled to the full benefit from that point onwards.
Following this case, in the absence of any agreement by the parties, the court will begin on the presumption that if they are joint owners of the property then they would be entitled to equal shares of the property. The next step will be to see what their intention was when they purchased the property and then to see whether this intention changed at any point subsequently. This will be done by looking objectively at their conduct and if their intentions cannot be inferred from their conduct the court will look to what would be considered fair in relation to their dealings with the property.
While in this case this seems to have led to a fair outcome by far the best course of action for couples buying a property together is to have a declaration of trust setting out what share each of them should have and to change this if their circumstances change. Whilst it has to be said that this is not the most romantic option, it could save a lot of expensive litigation in the future if the couple separate.