Latest news with #SarahSackman
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Landlords can force tenants to pay for insulation demanded by Miliband
Landlords will be able to pass on the cost of upgrading rental properties to tenants, the Government has admitted. Ed Miliband's net zero rules will require all rental properties to meet a minimum energy performance certificate rating of C by 2030. Despite the Energy Secretary's insistence that landlords will not put up rents to reach new efficiency targets, a minister has now said there are grounds for 'higher market rents'. The Conservatives say rents could rise as much as £4,000 a year to cover the cost of upgrading older properties or to match lower rental housing supply when landlords sell up. But Mr Miliband has previously said that when past standards were introduced 'we didn't see rent increases', and pointed to government schemes that help with the cost of insulation and heat pumps. The Government claims tenants will save £240 a year on their energy bills if their homes are better insulated. Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, has now admitted to Parliament that the cost of upgrading properties can legally be passed onto renters, paving the way for significant rises over the next five years. She was asked by Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, whether rents could legally be increased because of the cost of net zero upgrades if a tenant challenged a rise in court. Ms Sackman said that 'expenditure on the upgrading of an energy performance certificate to a higher level of energy efficiency is a material consideration, which may result, in certain circumstances, in a higher market rent being determined'. The admission comes despite Mr Miliband's insistence that the new rules will not push up rents. Asked in February whether the rules would impact the cost of housing, he told LBC: 'There is some government help, we're looking at what more can be provided. 'There are some local grants, there's the boiler upgrade scheme. When this was done before with a less exacting standard, we didn't see rent increases and half of landlords already do this.' Announcing the policy earlier this year, the Government said that it would 'save private renters £240 per year on average on their energy bills'. Calls to abandon net zero But Mr Hollinrake told The Telegraph: 'Red Ed promised to reduce everyone's bills but his mad dash to net zero is picking people's pockets. 'Not content with sending bills skyrocketing, hardworking families' rents are now in his crosshairs. Maybe this confession will make him finally realise that Labour's war on landlords just leaves renters worse off. 'He needs to heed our calls to abandon net zero by 2050 and fast, or working families and Middle England will continue to be clobbered by his eco cult.' Separate analysis found the policy is likely to push up rental prices by up to £4,000 a year for tenants. Some landlords say they would prefer to sell historic homes with poor energy efficiency than be forced to undertake extensive renovation to meet the standard. Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, called in February for ministers to pursue a 'realistic' version of the policy. 'The chronic shortage of tradespeople to carry out energy efficiency works needs to be addressed, alongside a targeted financial package to support investments in the work required,' he said. 'Gentler trajectory' Rob Wall, assistant director at the British Property Federation, said it would be ' challenging ' for all properties to meet the standard required. He said: 'We would like to have seen recognition of the time lost reflected through a gentler trajectory, to provide the sector with sufficient time and support to carry out necessary work.' A Department of Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman has said: 'Everyone deserves to live in a warm, comfortable home. 'We have recently consulted on plans to require private landlords to meet higher energy performance standards, which will help deliver cheaper-to-heat homes. 'These plans could lift up to half a million households out of fuel poverty by 2030, while also making renters hundreds of pounds better off.'
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Predatory marriages could be banned after pensioners ‘groomed' for inheritance payouts
Ministers are considering reforming marriage rules to stop elderly people from being preyed on and their families disinherited. So-called 'predatory marriages' – which lawyers claim are on the rise – see the elderly and vulnerable groomed into marriages they may not properly understand. Current rules mean that pre-existing wills are invalidated when a person marries, meaning that spouses, who can inherit without paying any death duties, stand to get everything under intestacy laws. But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries. In a letter to Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, and Fabian Hamilton, a Labour MP, raised the case of Joan Blass, a 91-year-old woman suffering from dementia who married a younger man in a 'secret' wedding. She was widowed in 2008 but towards the end of 2011 struck up a conversation with the man, who was standing at the end of her garden. Within a month, he had moved into her spare bedroom. The marriage – made without the knowledge of Ms Blass's family – meant that when she died in 2016, she was buried in an unmarked grave, against her wishes, and 'stripped of all her assets and money'. Her husband claimed she did have the capacity to marry him and that it was a 'loving and caring' relationship, the i newspaper reported. Mr Hamilton wrote on X: 'The Wills Act hasn't been updated since 1837. Marriage should never revoke a previous will. 'The Law Commission has put forward decisive recommendations. I have written to the justice minister calling on the Government to act on them.' The Labour MP put forward a Private Members' Bill in 2018 proposing a change in the law, which was supported by MPs including Rachel Reeves and Sir Ed Davey. Mr Hamilton said he had been contacted by several families who had experienced 'predatory marriages', demonstrating the scale of the issue. Daniel Edwards, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said many people were unaware of the rule, and that it 'can seem a little hard to justify, given changes in society since the rule came about.' Mr Edwards added: 'It is also one that can be open to abuse; in cases of 'predatory marriage' a will – that perhaps leaves everything to the testator's children – would in all likelihood be revoked by a marriage. 'While Law Commission reports can sometimes take years to be considered and debated in Parliament, the fact we have already seen the Government's response suggests there is motivation and intention to bring forward changes in the not-too-distant future.' Ms Sackman said in response to the recommendations: 'Marriage should no longer automatically revoke a will – this recommendation is designed to address the problem of 'predatory marriages' where vulnerable people are befriended, and the effect of the marriage is to disinherit families and others from any will they have made.' The Law Commission began looking into wills in 2016, before pausing the research in 2019 to focus on marriages at the Government's request. It published the results of two public consultations and draft legislation earlier this month. Other recommendations from the review included allowing children to make wills, making electronic wills valid and the recognition of more informal wills. The commission also proposed abolishing rules which stop second spouses, stepchildren and divorced partners from challenging mutual wills under the Inheritance Act 1975. Ms Sackman added: 'The reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide-ranging. They deserve detailed consideration. 'The Government recognises that the current law is outdated, and we must embrace change, but the guiding principle in doing so will be to ensure that reform does not compromise existing freedoms or protecting the elderly and vulnerable in society from undue influence.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Predatory marriages could be banned after pensioners ‘groomed' for inheritance payouts
Ministers are considering reforming marriage rules to stop elderly people from being preyed on and their families disinherited. So-called 'predatory marriages' – which lawyers claim are on the rise – see the elderly and vulnerable groomed into marriages they may not properly understand. Current rules mean that pre-existing wills are invalidated when a person marries, meaning that spouses, who can inherit without paying any death duties, stand to get everything under intestacy laws. But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries. In a letter to Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, and Fabian Hamilton, a Labour MP, raised the case of Joan Blass, a 91-year-old woman suffering from dementia who married a younger man in a 'secret' wedding. She was widowed in 2008 but towards the end of 2011 struck up a conversation with the man, who was standing at the end of her garden. Within a month, he had moved into her spare bedroom. The marriage – made without the knowledge of Ms Blass's family – meant that when she died in 2016, she was buried in an unmarked grave, against her wishes, and 'stripped of all her assets and money'. Her husband claimed she did have the capacity to marry him and that it was a 'loving and caring' relationship, the i newspaper reported. Mr Hamilton wrote on X: 'The Wills Act hasn't been updated since 1837. Marriage should never revoke a previous will. 'The Law Commission has put forward decisive recommendations. I have written to the justice minister calling on the Government to act on them.' Current rules 'hard to justify' The Labour MP put forward a Private Members' Bill in 2018 proposing a change in the law, which was supported by MPs including Rachel Reeves and Sir Ed Davey. Mr Hamilton said he had been contacted by several families who had experienced 'predatory marriages', demonstrating the scale of the issue. Daniel Edwards, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said many people were unaware of the rule, and that it 'can seem a little hard to justify, given changes in society since the rule came about.' Mr Edwards added: 'It is also one that can be open to abuse; in cases of 'predatory marriage' a will – that perhaps leaves everything to the testator's children – would in all likelihood be revoked by a marriage. 'While Law Commission reports can sometimes take years to be considered and debated in Parliament, the fact we have already seen the Government's response suggests there is motivation and intention to bring forward changes in the not-too-distant future.' Government 'recognises current law is outdated' Ms Sackman said in response to the recommendations: 'Marriage should no longer automatically revoke a will – this recommendation is designed to address the problem of 'predatory marriages' where vulnerable people are befriended, and the effect of the marriage is to disinherit families and others from any will they have made.' The Law Commission began looking into wills in 2016, before pausing the research in 2019 to focus on marriages at the Government's request. It published the results of two public consultations and draft legislation earlier this month. Other recommendations from the review included allowing children to make wills, making electronic wills valid and the recognition of more informal wills. The commission also proposed abolishing rules which stop second spouses, stepchildren and divorced partners from challenging mutual wills under the Inheritance Act 1975. Ms Sackman added: 'The reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide-ranging. They deserve detailed consideration. 'The Government recognises that the current law is outdated, and we must embrace change, but the guiding principle in doing so will be to ensure that reform does not compromise existing freedoms or protecting the elderly and vulnerable in society from undue influence.'
Telegraph
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
First-time offenders may lose right to jury trial, minister hints
People accused of lower level crimes such as shoplifting and drug possession for the first time could lose their right to being tried by a jury, a justice minister has indicated. Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, said it was a 'big question' being considered by the Government's independent review of the criminal courts whether such first-time offenders should continue to have a right to jury trial. The review, headed by Sir Brian Leveson, the High Court judge, is expected to recommend that all people accused of offences such as some thefts, drug possession and assaults will no longer be able to opt for a jury trial as part of a 'once-in-a-generation' shake up of the court system to reduce record backlogs and delays. But he is under pressure to allow some exceptions for those accused of a first offence who might, for example, have simply forgotten to pay for a shopping item but would be denied the chance to try to clear their names in front of a jury of their peers – with the consequences of a conviction potentially career-ending. 'That's going to be a big question for Sir Brian,' said Ms Sackman, who suggested that any defendant would – and should – get a fair trial irrespective of whether it was before a jury in a Crown Court or magistrates. 'Ultimately, the duty of the state is to ensure a fair trial, and there is no evidence to suggest that when it comes either to rates of conviction, or in terms of sentencing practice, any differential between the magistrates or the sorts of justice one gets in the Crown Court,' she told Joshua Rozenberg, a solicitor and leading legal commentator, on his podcast, A Lawyer Talks. 'There actually ought to not to be any differential in terms of the quality of the justice that that individual receives, whether that's in the magistracy or in front of the Crown Court, and indeed, for that individual, quick resolution, getting an outcome is actually the real prize. 'Because where cases are taking two or three years to come to court and having knock-on effects for the trial of other crimes such as rape or murder, that truly, in my view, becomes corrosive of the fairness of our entire justice process.' Ms Mahmood has commissioned Sir Brian to review ways in which defendants' rights to jury trials could be scaled back without undermining fair justice. This could see magistrates hearing more serious cases, some defendants losing the right to ask for their case to be tried before a jury and the creation of a new intermediate court, which would replace a jury with one judge and two magistrates. The right to a jury trial extends back to the 13th century, and ministers are adamant that serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults – including rape – assault causing grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and arson with intent will still be tried before their peers in crown court. Ms Sackman also suggested there could be judge-only trials for complex fraud cases, regulatory and environment crimes where there are large amounts of expert evidence. 'All options are on the table,' said Ms Sackman. 'We'll have to see if Sir Brian regards any of those as suitable candidates for a judge trial.' She said the current backlog – where, for example, rape victims were waiting two to three years for justice – was unsustainable. 'The old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, rings true in this case,' she said. 'What we're talking about here is, how do we get swifter justice for victims, better value for the taxpayer, and indeed, for those who are accused of a crime that they may not have committed, ensuring that they're not prolonged in that state of limbo. 'The reclassification of offences would mean taking a cohort of cases out of the Crown Court into the magistrates where they'd be tried as summary only offences. To give you some context, some 90 per cent of cases are currently tried without a jury in the magistrates' court.' She added: 'When people are waiting for years for their day in court, for justice to be done, that ultimately deprives that person of a fair trial. And it's not just unfair to the individual, it's actually corrosive of our entire system and confidence.'
Times
12-05-2025
- Business
- Times
Civil justice system needs money, more judges and less paperwork
'If I were handing out a report, I would say there was room for improvement.' Such was the blunt assessment of the courts minister, Sarah Sackman KC, when asked about the performance of the county court during her recent first appearance before MPs on the justice committee. Concerns over delays, resourcing and capacity in civil justice have persisted for years, but half a decade on from the onset of the pandemic, with a government placing economic growth at the centre of its agenda, it is finally crunch time for all those who rely on a functioning county court to deliver timely justice. A contradiction has long existed when it comes to civil justice. Despite being the system that most citizens come across in various aspects
