It can be depressing enough when house prices have simply gone downhill since the purchase of the building, but if something preventable has reduced the property’s value, then it can leave proprietors kicking themselves that they didn’t sort the issue sooner.

However, less commonly, house price can tumble due to the negligence of a neighbour.

The residential conveyancing team at Healys recently read about a civil servant who was fined by his local council in Newport for leaving his home in a state of disrepair for four years.

The building, which stands on an up-market road in the area, has reportedly lowered the value of the other houses on the street by an estimated £20,000.

Neighbours complained and the council issued the man with an enforcement notice in 2011, stating that he had to repair or demolish the garage, repaint the home’s window frames, clear the garden of over-grown plants, and make improvements to the front door and roof tiles. After ignoring this enforcement he was prosecuted.

One of the road’s residents stated, “There has been a fire and at times the garden has looked like a jungle.”

Adding, “No one knows much about [the man]. He doesn’t seem to live here. We hope he will now pull his finger out and bring the house up to scratch.”

The solicitors for house purchase at Healys will be interested to see whether the owner makes any of the changes required of him.

The case concerned a married couple who bought a property in the desirable riverside location of Putney, West London. They had instructed a firm of architects to plan the redesign, which, in turn, had connected the claimants with a firm of builders – recommending its quote on the work as being both cheap and reliable.

However, several weeks after the near £300,000 works were completed on the £1.7 million property, a number of defects became clear: damp, defective floor tiles, as well as faulty plumbing and electrical works included.

Expressing obvious concern, the owners of the property decided to pursue an architect professional negligence claim, arguing that, as the overseeing architect, the defendant failed to adequately monitor the work of the builder. In short, argued the claimant, the architect should have noticed the defects and taken steps to remedy them.

However, when it also became clear that the building firm had filed for insolvency, the claimants were left with the architects as the sole potential defendant, so took out an architect professional negligence claim for a full £800,000 (including potential losses).

However, the defendant attempted to counter the claim by arguing that the retainer included a net contribution clause, which limited their liability: “Our liability for loss and damage will be limited to the amount that is reasonable for us to pay in relation to the contractual responsibilities of other consultants, contractors and specialists appointed by you.”

However, in considering the net contribution clause, the judge hearing the case ruled that as the architect had both recommended the builder and received a fee for their work, it could not hide from liability in the specific wording of the net contribution clause. As such, the architect professional negligence claim succeeded, and the claimants will receive a payout.

A source close to Ms Aniston told OK! magazine that she has declared “I’m choosing love, not money. And people are just going to have to deal with it.”

It has been reported that friends of Ms Aniston, who helped the actress through a painful divorce from Brad Pitt in 2005, are worried about this decision, and it’s possible that this will have made Ms Aniston’s family lawyers a touch nervous too. But she is, apparently, determined to go ahead with the marriage sans pre nup.

In the past Ms Aniston has cited her negative attitude towards marriage, which was possibly cultivated as a result of her parents’ stormy life and eventual divorce, as one possible reason for previous relationship difficulties.

However, in her latest relationship with actor / director Justin Theroux, it appears that Ms Aniston wishes to put negativity completely out of the picture, and that obviously means…no pre-nuptial agreement.

Let’s hope that Ms Aniston has made the right decision, but we believe her lawyers will be frantically asking her to change her mind.

The couple, who married in 1981, had split up by 1984, and when the divorce was finalised in 1992, Mr Vince was not ordered to pay maintenance since he was broke.

Throughout their relationship they had mainly lived on benefits, choosing to live a ‘New Age’ lifestyle.

By 1997 however, he had started to successfully launch himself into the world of business. That year Ms Wyatt applied to the Child Support Agency, but her maintenance claim concluded in nil assessment.

She reportedly tried again in 2001, but withdrew the application, and then again in 2010 with the aid of a new family law solicitor.

Despite the fact that Dale Vince’s company now provides energy to more than 70,000 customers and in 2010-11 had a turnover of more than £44m, Lord Justice Jackson ruled that Kathleen Wyatt should not receive maintenance from her ex-husband three decades after the divorce.

He stated, “Her husband was the most improbable candidate for affluence.

“The wife no doubt can appeal to his sense of charity but in my judgment he is not to be compelled to boost the wife’s income by the exercise of the jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973.”

However, if the claim is brought forward because the poor advice has caused the client to become involved in a transaction which has resulted in them suffering financial loss, it is easy to see why this course of action might be inevitable.

Every year in the UK, professional negligence lawyers and the court system hear cases in which either corporate lenders or private clients take action against their advisors after obtaining information which, they say, has caused them financial loss.

Put simply, in these legal and financial advice professional negligence cases it is up to the courts to decide whether there was indeed negligence, whether this led to specific actions which caused financial loss and whether it was reasonable for the advisor to assume that the advice given would be acted upon by the client. In the event that the specific claim meets these tests, it will not be possible for the claimant to secure compensation.

These matters are relevant today because, with the UK economy currently flat-lining and uncertainty regarding the long-term viability of job security and pension schemes, people are more than ever before relying on professional legal and financial advice to help provide for their futures. If your professional gets it wrong, it is good to know that you always have recourse to a professional negligence claim. After all, professional advice, what is it for?

Tesco and Marks and Spencers plan on building their stores on the road, which means that the houses along it must be demolished to make room.

However, reportedly, despite all the other residents agreeing to have their homes purchased from them and moving elsewhere, one of the street’s occupants refuses to budge.

A 58-year-old woman has rejected all house purchase offers made to her, halting the development for the time being.

She states that she has “got it [her house] just the way I like it” adding, “I’m holding on to this house because I love my home. It’s a matter of principle. I just don’t want to leave my house.”

To many, the two companies will seem the villains of this piece, so it is important to mention that the new commercial units would create around 280 jobs in the area, and boost trade in the town centre by an estimated £1.6m to £3.5m annually.

Apparently the council is considering the use of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) in order to move the lady along and begin the build.

If you would like advice about CPOs, house purchase, or house sale, please contact Healys commercial and residential conveyancing solicitors.

The report showed that – as many residential conveyancing solicitors will have noticed – the housing market is slowly becoming more active again after a big dip.

Furthermore, with the numbers of people and organisations purchasing property on the up again, the interest in buying land with planning consent is also increasing.

Apparently, house builders, property companies, and public limited companies are all getting involved in the purchase of land, despite the prices rising slightly to match renewed interest.

For example, in London, some property developers are seeking consented brown field sites on which can be constructed 50 to 150 new units. This could enable them to increase their output in the next two years.

In the South East and Centre of England a fight rages over good quality green field sites, since land for sale is in short supply. Generally, there is not much good-quality land currently available for purchase in the UK.

In spite of the competition many firms will face in order to purchase land, it looks as though in the next few years residential and commercial property solicitors might see a rise in the number of companies approaching them for legal help buying new commercial buildings, as well as individuals and families contacting them for assistance in purchasing a new home.

However, a recent case in Scotland has raised some interesting questions regarding just how seriously disputing parties might take the resolutions offered by the adjudication process.

In the case, a whisky maker, Whyte and Mackay, sought damages for what it claimed were the defective foundations in their new bottling plant, which had been designed by the defendant, Blyth & Blyth.

Under the terms of contract between the two parties, it is reasonable to refer any professional negligence dispute arising from the work to a adjudicator. This is exactly what they did, and the adjudicator gave a decision, resolving that Blyth and Blyth should pay the whisky maker nearly £3 million compensation.

However, in seeking the claimant’s attempt to enforce the decision at the Court of Session, Blyth and Blyth successfully countered that the adjudicator had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision, meaning his determination was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights – a judgement which has resulted in a reduction the size of the settlement.

Interestingly, Lord Malcolm ruled that adjudication should be viewed only as a “rough and ready”, which, although “speedy and relatively cheap” provides only a “provisional award pending a final determination by litigation, arbitration or agreement”.

It is worth bearing in mind that the design and construction professional negligence dispute at the heart of this case was very high value and that courts may give more weight to adjudication rulings in cases of lower monetary value.

However, there has been a knock-on effect to the crackdown on tax avoidance, with an increasing number of businesses and individuals contacting professional negligence solicitors about accountancy firms who advised them on tax avoidance schemes which are now being looked at in detail by HMRC.

“HMRC is poring over many of the tax avoidance schemes that were set up before the financial crisis. It is taking a very aggressive approach towards individuals and is frightening many of them into paying the disputed tax, without having to show that the tax is lawfully due,” said one insider.

However, he also said that rather than pursuing accountancy professional negligence claims, some of those concerned would perhaps be better off challenging HMRC.

“A lot of professional indemnity insurers are concerned that some of the negligence claims they are being notified of are shaky at best. We urge them to consider defending the growing number of claims robustly,” he added.

Those who believe they might have strong grounds for an accountancy professional negligence claim can contact the specialists at Healys LLP lawyers in Brighton and London for more information.

As a result of the changes to the law, solicitors face tougher sanction if they fail to adhere to the strict deadlines in place across the nation’s courts. As a result solicitors could harsher penalties – while there will be fewer opportunities for solicitors and lawyers to plea exceptional or mitigating circumstances.

It is thought that the changes have been introduced as part of wider reforms aimed at altering the litigation landscape in Britain – Lord Justice Jackson, the instigator of reforms has spoken of a desire to end the “culture of toleration of delay and non-compliance with court orders.”

So, with less scope for escaping court time limits and processes, those solicitors who fail to act in time could face an increased possibility of claims for negligence.