Many LSVT Registered Providers (“RPs”) have come of age – or will soon be coming of age -after delivering their offer document promises. This provides RPs with the perfect platform to start to work towards a more mature, business like, relationship with their transferring council.

A potential hurdle to this fundamental development step is any outstanding financial liability owed to the RP by the councils under the stock transfer agreement. As part of the stock transfer process, councils provide various warranties and/or indemnities in favour of the RP; most notably dangerous substances, including asbestos. What steps can, and should, an RP take when a warranty is found to be inaccurate, or breached, or an indemnity limit reached?

Understandably, many RPs are reluctant to ‘rock the boat’ due to the need for a continued working relationship with their council on issues such as planning consent for planned development. However, can RPs realistically ‘look the other way’ when a potential claim exists with the consequential financial implications for the organisation?

Stepping out of a council’s shadow by bringing such a claim will inevitably cause some friction; however, the appropriate management of claims can ensure that a working relationship with the council is maintained.

With our substantial stock transfer and RPs governance experience we often advise upon, and manage, claims arising out of stock transfer warranties and indemnities. We work with clients to achieve resolution, ideally without having to start Court proceedings. In our experience, the majority of claims are settled by negotiation and/or mediation.

We have successfully negotiated settlements which include both a financial and non-financial element, the latter often seeming to be more valuable to RPs. This could include removing certain council management rights, amending the transfer agreement to enhance the RPs nomination provisions and financial payments in the event of asset sales.

Many stock transfer agreements now include warranties of 30 years duration from the date of transfer and as a result, RPs should actively review their transfer agreements to assess any breaches. Failure to claim for breaches within the standard 12 years limitation period will prevent an RP from successfully pursuing a claim.

For more information

If you wish to discuss your position, or suspect your council may be in breach of a warranty or indemnity please contact Hilary Harrison.

Is £400m enough?
Is £400m enough?

The government announced on 16 May that it will provide a fund of £400m to cover the costs of removal and replacement of cladding to high rise residential blocks which have failed tests.

The problems with co-owned properties and attorneys
The problems with co-owned properties and attorneys

Whilst some people are under the impression that preparing a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is simply a case of completing a form and ticking a few boxes, it is about far more than this.

What's mine is (not) yours!
What's mine is (not) yours!

A big fear for some people facing divorce and the inevitable carving up of the matrimonial assets. They seek assurances that such assets will be “ring-fenced” and retained for them.

How to avoid the PET trap
How to avoid the PET trap

When an individual is thinking about making a gift to another individual, consideration needs to be given to the Potentially Exempt Transfer (PET) trap.

Fictitious divorces
Fictitious divorces

Arising from the recent Family Division announcement, people who think they are legally divorced may in fact still be married.