Taylor Walton’s Insolvency Partner, Guy Thomas, who is an expert in football finance,  comments to the BBC on the latest twist in the ownership saga surrounding Premier League club Blackburn Rovers

“The recession has hit the Football sector hard. Imaginative ideas for community and trust based ownership are one of the different ways concerned fans are responding. This story also illustrates the need for early advice when drawing up such plans”.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17610789

Guy Thomas is a corporate lawyer based in Taylor Walton’s Luton office and specialises in insolvency and restructuring. He deals with all aspects of corporate recovery and restructuring, personal insolvency, LPA receivership and company directors’ disqualification.

The Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber has given its judgement in the long running case involving the Independent Schools Council, the Charity Commission and the Attorney General it what is seen as a key case, especially for fee charging educational charities, such as private schools.

The case dates back to the Charities Act 2006 which introduced a public benefit test and later Charity Commission guidance on how public benefit was to be assessed.

Both sides are claiming a victory, or at least a partial one, and the judgement itself is lengthy but some points are clear. The Tribunal made clarified that educating fee-paying pupils is a public benefit and that it is for the trustees of any given charity to determine public benefit decisions.

The Charity Commission’s current guidance in relation to public benefit was held to be wrong or obscure in several places, especially in relation to principles 2b and 2c of the public benefit requirement, which are:

• where the benefit is to a section of the public, the benefit must not be restricted by geography or by the ability to pay fees; and
• people in poverty must not be excluded from benefitting.

Parts of the Charity Commission’s published guidance have now been withdrawn and the withdrawn guidance no longer forms part of its statutory guidance on public benefit to which charity trustees must have regard when carrying out any powers or duties to which the guidance is relevant. It is now in the process of revising the guidance about what trustees must now have regard to in fee charging charities, but that does leave a considerable area of doubt and potential uncertainty until the new guidance is available.

However, the position is not necessarily in the favour of private schools as they Tribunal made clear that such a school could not simply rely on the education of fee-paying pupils in order to maintain its charitable status. The Tribunal made clear that provision for the poor cannot simply be tokenistic in nature although subsidised places for example are important. The judgement suggests a broad range of other educational activities can be taken into account, but the Tribunal did draw a distinction between educational benefits and non-educational benefits, which are not relevant for assessing whether an educational charity satisfies the public benefit requirement.

Two other areas are also worth highlighting at this stage. The first is that the Tribunal did not give a definition of what a “poor” person is. The view is that it does not necessarily mean the destitute and the definition could extend to include people of what might be considered modest means, who can not afford the level of fees charged by some private schools. In fact the definition may well depend on the charity concerned.

Secondly, the Tribunal did not give any definitive guidance on what might be adequate provision for “poor” pupils; in fact it deliberately tried not to. This means that what individual charities do in relation to satisfying the public benefit requirement is to be determined by their own trustees.

Charitable Incorporated Organisations

The Government has now confirmed that they expect implementation of Charitable Incorporated Organisations to start in early-to-mid 2012, subject to Parliamentary approval.

In a written answer to the House of Commons, Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, said that the necessary draft secondary legislation is being prepared and that a further announcement on implementation will be made.

Fraud from Charities

Recent news reports highlighted the conviction and jailing of a former charity administrator who stole over £76,000 from a children’s charity based in Yorkshire.

Whilst such cases are hopefully rare, they do show that charity trustees must remain vigilant and have effective financial controls in place.

Online Resources

The Charity Commission has now published video tutorials on its website to help trustees file their annual returns and update their charity’s details online.

The Charity Commission is moving towards the stage when all charities that are required to do so file their annual returns online using the Commission’s own website. The Charity Commission has also updated its model governing documents.

Good News for Local Charities

A report in Third Sector showed that legacy income for local charities had increased by 5.4% over the past 5 years compared to 2.5% for national charities.

At a time when many charities have grave concerns over their funding this is at least some good news.

Patrick Green is a Partner in Taylor Walton’s Private Client team based in Harpenden with an interest in charity law and is a member of the Charity Law Association. He advises on the formation of charities and their registration, charity trustees’ obligations and duties, the interpretation of trust deeds and other related issues. For further information on the issues raised here, or charity related issues in general, please speak to Patrick Green on 01582 765111 or patrick.green@taylorwalton.co.uk.

The Government have recently introduced the NewBuy indemnity backed mortgage scheme under which 95% loan to value mortgages for buyers of new build homes are being offered. This may give those with a smaller deposit more opportunity to get on the property ladder.

There are also a number of other affordable housing options available. These include shared ownership, shared equity and rent-to-buy schemes to name just a few. Not all schemes will be suitable for everyone so being aware of what each one involves is vitally important before making a decision on how to proceed.

Shared ownership – this is where you purchase a share in the property and you will then be responsible for paying to the Housing Association a monthly rent for that share of the property which you do not own. You may purchase further shares in the property by instalments at the market value of the property applicable at the time of purchase. The purchase of further shares is triggered by the tenant serving notice on the Housing Association of their desire to purchase. You can go on to purchase 100% of the property and would then stop paying any rent.

Shared equity – this is where you purchase 100% of the property with the assistance of your mortgage but obtain a second mortgage from the home builder or Government backed scheme. You will not have to pay rent (unless the property is leasehold) as you will own the property outright. The second mortgage would be repayable within a set time frame, normally 5 or 10 years from the date of your purchase.

Rent-to-buy schemes – you enter into a tenancy agreement for a property but with an option to go on and purchase the property or a share of the property during or at the end of the tenancy. These schemes vary greatly from developer to developer so you should ensure you have familiarised yourself with the terms of the one you wish to enter. In the event that you go on to purchase the property then some developers will offer you all of the rent back which you have paid during the tenancy so that you can use this as a deposit on your purchase of the property.

First time buyer initiatives can be complex so we would always recommend that you seek the advice of a solicitor and financial advisor before deciding which is the best option for you.

Helen Hall is a residential conveyancer with over 10 years experience. She acts on behalf of clients on a range of residential property matters and has a keen interest in first time buyer initiatives, shared ownership and shared equity.

• The qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will increase from 1 year to 2 years
• Employment Judges are to sit alone ( without lay members) in unfair dismissal cases unless the Judge directs otherwise
• Statutory sick pay will increase to £85.85 from £81.60 and statutory maternity pay to £135.45 per week from £128.73
• The limit for deposit orders will increase from £500 to £1000
• The limit for costs orders will increase from £10,000 to £20,000
• Witness statements will be taken as read unless the tribunal directs otherwise
• Section 147 Equality Act 2010 will be amended to address the concerns as to who is an independent adviser
• The prescribed form of apprenticeship agreement in respect of the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is expected to come into force.

To read the full summary of these changes click here.

Sarah Empson is a senior solicitor in Taylor Walton’s Employment Department and joined the firm in 2007. She advises employers and employees on a wide range of contentious and non-contentious employment issues such as day to day queries concerning disciplinary, grievance, sickness absence issues and dismissals. She also represents the firm’s clients in Employment Tribunal cases from the outset of the claim up to and including the hearing in relation to claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination.

Whilst Buy to Let properties can provide an attractive investment opportunity with yields of 5% and above, buying a property to let out needs careful research. Spotting opportunities can provide major rewards to the would-be landlord but success can never be guaranteed. Here are a few tips that may come in useful when considering buy to let properties.

1. The old cliché “location location location” is true! Rental values vary sharply from the “good roads” to the less popular ones. Look for a good location e.g. near the town centre or station.

2. Work out the financials before making an offer. If you are buying a leasehold flat, check the service charge carefully as this could reduce your rental income by between £100 and £150 per month in some cases. Ask your solicitor to find out the exact level of service charge or if it is likely to rise.

3. Look at the yield produced by similar properties. Don’t guess at it; ask local letting agents for their advice as to what rents best and where.

4. If you are buying a flat ask your solicitor to check whether there is any major expenditure on the horizon as this can seriously reduce the potential income. Also make sure your solicitor retains money in case past service charge payments remain outstanding.

5. Find the right tenant. You want a tenant who will “pay and stay”. It’s better to have a good long term tenant at a slightly lower rent than one who will be looking for a stop gap. Try to arrange a letting for a minimum of 12 months.

6. Find the right mortgage. There is a plentiful supply of specialist buy to let mortgage products on the market with some attractive interest rates. Get an independent mortgage adviser to do the leg work for you in finding the best deals.

At Taylor Walton we are seeing confidence returning to the housing market. This means that the best bargains are being snapped up! Now could be the right time to make those Buy to Let dreams a reality but we advise all potential landlords to proceed with caution. Our knowledge and experience of this complex market could be the difference between you making a sound investment or a significant loss.

Richard Atkins is a Partner in the Residential Conveyancing department of Taylor Walton LLP solicitors, which has offices in Luton, Harpenden and St Albans and provides effective legal solutions to businesses and individuals across Beds, Bucks, Herts and the South East. Richard has written widely on conveyancing issues and is

With buyers currently requiring deposits of around 20% in order to obtain a mortgage the housing market has seen more first time buyers than ever turning to renting their homes instead. The scheme announced by the Coalition will introduce mortgage indemnities on 95% mortgages for first time buyers of new build homes – giving those with a smaller deposit more opportunity to buy a property and get on the first step of the property ladder. It is also expected that the home builder will contribute 3.5% of the home value into the fund. The Government are confident that this scheme, now renamed NewBuy, will assist 100,000 first time buyers to reach that first step and fulfil the dream of owning their first home.

The scheme is anticipated that those wishing to participate in the NewBuy scheme will either need to visit a participating new-build development or mortgage lender to discuss their eligibility to the scheme. Independent financial Advisors should also be aware of the scheme. Those who meet the requirements on lender’s affordability and credit criteria will then be eligible for a mortgage loan of up to 95 per cent of the property purchase price.

In the event that the property is repossessed or falls into negative equity the lender will be able to claim on the mortgage indemnity offered under the scheme to recover some of its loss.

The criteria for eligibility is set to include:

• The property being purchased must be a new build being sold for the first time
• The price can be up to £500,000 and there are no income caps on those applying
• The scheme is not available for shared ownership or shared equity purchases, you must be purchasing with full ownership
• It must be your primary home that you are purchasing.

Critics claim that the scheme will only help the new homes market and not the wider housing market but until it is launched its effects will remain unknown.

For advice about buying a new home or moving home, please contact Taylor Walton solicitors.

Helen Hall is a residential conveyancer with over 10 years experience. She acts on behalf of clients on a range of residential property matters and has a keen interest in first time buyer initiatives, shared ownership and shared equity.

In truth, although it could happen in theory, clubs rarely get wound up at a first hearing as long as they turn up and ask for time to consult with potential buyers or their insolvency advisors.

In many cases, a debenture holder would have appointed an Administrator by now and Portpin Ltd’s failure to appoint an Administrator is probably related to both the need to inject cash and the (off stage) noises from HMRC that it might want to challenge such an appointment.

Pompey’s Directors are reported as having applied to Court directly to appoint Andrew Andronikou as Administrator (no conflict there, of course).

I understand the club are trying to get listed for Friday (tomorrow). I haven’t heard what HMRC’s response is yet or if they have put forward an alternative Administrator but it would be an interesting one for the club to fend off if HMRC turned up to oppose the Administration but had a proposed joint or alternative Administrator appointment in their back pocket.

If the Court were persuaded to appoint an Administrator (over Liquidating the Club) it may even be cheaper for HMRC to appoint their own Administrator to try and find a buyer whilst reviewing the Club, its transactions and security rather then subsequently spend legal fees challenging that Portpin debenture.

Just a thought, of course…only time and Court Orders will tell.

Watch this space.

Guy Thomas is an Insolvency Partner at Taylor Walton LLP and a specialist in Football Finance.

Following last years’ Administration of Convers Sports Initiatives Plc (CSI)  (if not before) the hunt was on for a new owner of Pompey.

The Chairman  (and Stakeholder in the Club’s parent company) stepped down and then, whilst continuing to try and sell the Club, on 3 January 2012, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) sought to wind up the Club  seeking £1.6 million in tax.

This changed everything, especially the efforts to sell the Club. As of the 3rd January, every disposition by the Clubs directors between then and the hearing on 20th February is deemed void by s.127 of the Insolvency Act1986, unless the Club pays off HMRC or gets rid of the Winding up petition.

The winding up is not just a test for the Clubs owners. It is also a test for its secured creditors, Portpin Limited.

If the secured creditors want to maintain the current value of their “claim” they must either pay to get rid of the winding up petition or sell to a new owner (whose job it would be to get rid of the Petition without triggering Administration).

As an aside; even if the Club or Portpin Limited or a new buyer were to pay off this petitioner (HMRC) why would they pay though the nose to do so? If that miracle was to happen and HMRC were paid off, the Club would likely avoid any point deduction from this winding up procedure but that still leaves the threat of a points deduction following the Administration of the Club’s parent company CSI

Remember what was reported at the time about the possibility of a points deduction ? That issue has yet to be resolved.

The various machinations at Pompey over the last two years have not changed two central points:

1. The Debenture over Portsmouth City Football Club, currently registered to a British Virgin Island company named “Portpin Ltd”, has meant that who ever controlled Portpin’s debenture, effectively controlled the fate of Pompey.

2. The second “truth” is that despite its financial difficulties Pompey has had a variety of people whom have wanted to own the shares and invest money into the Club to keep it trading – unfortunately they appear to have lost their shirts. The latest is Mr Vladimir Antonov, stakeholder in CSI (In Administration). The Administrators of CSI were also the Administrators of Pompey when it was last in Administration.

Oh, the latest cliches?

Well first there were the prospective buyers manoeuvres, as seen on the BBC webite  along with my analysis of “Where Does Pompey Go Now?”  via  BBC Radio Solent  and TalkSport Radio. Finally an honourable mention to those Tweeters who use #Pompey

Then there was the unpaid players  and ground staff

And finally, the last minute validation application  [I am sure that will be along any minute]

The Winding up Petition means that Portpin Ltd, owners of the Debenture over Pompey now have two choices.

One of these involves getting off the pot and selling the club.

Question is, with such a traumatic (and potentially expensive) recent history, still fresh in their minds, who would now want  to take Mr Antonov’s [CSI] place as Pompey’s unsecured but very generous benefactor; buying this struggling club but without also asking to take the place of the Debenture holder ?

The date of the hearing is set for 20th February at the Companies Court in London. If the Debenture owners don’t act before “High Noon” then Portsmouth’s Football Club will very likely cease to exist on that day.

What next? If the Debenture holders are holding out they may want to consider what happens if judgement in the case of the “Football Creditors Rule”  comes in early, say before the 20th February?………… but more on that in my next blog

Guy Thomas  a partner at Taylor Walton LLP is an Insolvency Lawyer with a specialism in Football Finance.

The ownership of property by cohabitees is fraught with difficulties as there is no legislation covering couples in a cohabiting relationship. The phrase ‘common law spouse’ has no legal meaning and anyone who finds themselves in such a situation should ensure their property rights are properly documented.

The facts

The facts of the recent case were unusual. Miss Jones and Mr Kernott lived together from 1983. They jointly bought a house for £30,000 in 1985. Miss Jones provided the £6,000 deposit, the rest coming from a joint mortgage. They did not state their entitlement to the eventual sale proceeds. In 1986 they used money from a joint loan to build an extension. Mr Kernott did some of the building work.

Mr Kernott moved out in 1993. In 1995 they surrendered an insurance policy and divided the proceeds. Mr Kernott purchased a property in his sole name. From 1996 Miss Jones paid all the mortgage instalments, endowment premiums and household bills on the joint property.

In 2006, Mr Kernott asked for a half share of the property value, which had increased significantly. Miss Jones claimed all the value, the property then being worth £245,000, and asked the court to decide matters. Initially the court decided she should have 90% of the equity. The court considered the entitlement as joint until Mr Kernott stopped making payments and that Miss Jones should have the subsequent benefit of the property increase. The court also took into account the value of the separate property purchased by Mr Kernott. His 10% interest in the joint property, plus his own home value, gave him about £20,000 less in total value than Miss Jones. This was approved on the first appeal.

Mr Kernott then appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court decided, based more on standard property law, that the house remained in joint names and that the equity should be divided equally. Miss Jones appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously restored the outcome of the original hearing on first appeal.

Two Supreme Court Judges commented on the lack of legislation for cohabiting couples. This decision may be the first step in Judges creating a solution to a common situation for which there is no adequate legislation. However, even this case does not produce a clear outcome which applies universally.

The following principles arise :

1. Unless stated otherwise, joint purchasers are presumed to intend to share the property proceeds equally.

2. This presumption can be altered if a common intention to change this arrangement can be shown, either on purchase or later on.

3. If there is no Trust Deed or similar document, a court can decide (“infer”) the common intention based on the conduct of the parties, by words or actions, in the course of their dealings.

4. If the joint ownership presumption does not apply, but the true position is unclear, the court has a duty to decide the issue when requested and can indicate (“impute”) what would be fair and appropriate.

5. Each case still depends upon its own facts.

6. Financial dealings between the parties will not necessarily be decisive.

Often one party contributes more than the other to the purchase price of a joint property, as Miss Jones did. This decision suggests that if a property is purchased in joint names the couple is treated as buying on an equal basis unless there is other documentation to show a different intention. Financial contributions made after the purchase might alter the situation.

It is now essential for couples buying jointly to be clear in their intentions from the outset. If they complete the transfer document to show that they will be beneficial joint tenants, that will apply irrespective of any financial contributions which each may have made. It will also be essential that any change is clearly confirmed in writing, signed and dated by both to verify the position, to avoid very expensive litigation. Preparation of a Trust Deed, either at the time of the original purchase or later, should clarify matters. Similarly, couples can enter into a Cohabitation Agreement at any stage during their relationship in which they specify what will happen to any joint assets in the event of them splitting up.

For advice about Cohabitation Agreements or as to the preparation of a Trust Deed, please contact Taylor Walton solicitors.

Michael Howard is a Family Law solicitor at Taylor Walton solicitors, which has offices in Harpenden, Luton and St Albans and provides effective legal solutions to businesses and individuals across Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and the South East. Michael can be contacted by telephone on 01582 765111 or michael.howard@taylorwalton.co.uk