Liverpool landlord seeks compensation over Anfield redevelopment

A local landlord may cause Liverpool Football Club serious problems standing on their way to the expansion of their stadium. He called for a significant compensation or he would not allow the knocking down of his houses. For those of you, who would prefer to avoid being in a similar situation – use the deed of gift template.
The planned expansion is by 15,000 seats, which means they have to demolish some streets surrounding the stadium in order to complete their aim.
The number of the houses, which will have to be destroyed is 72.  Liverpool Football Club already owns 51 of them and tries to buy the rest.
Graham Jones owns two of the remaining houses. He claims that the club damages the area as it only buys houses and leaves them empty afterwards.
“Anfield was your average working-class area until Liverpool began buying houses and leaving them empty because they wanted the streets knocked down,” said Jones.
He added that he has had serious difficulties in finding tenants because of the decline of the area. According to his calculations, this has cost his partner and him about £500,000 in rent over the years.
Council leader Joe Anderson confessed there were lots of mistakes in the preparation for the stadium’s enlargement saying that residents were not protected enough.
However, he shared he did not quite well understand the motives of landlords.
“It is worth noting that the only owners with whom we have not reached agreement on acquisition are private landlords who do not live in the area and whose interests are purely financial,” said Anderson. “We will not allow a handful of private landlords to stand in the way of plans which will benefit everyone.”

Jobseekers Bring Legal Challenge Over Retroactive Legislation

Despite a court judgement, benefits rebates were blocked to a quarter of a million so three jobseekers decided to challenge this application of the law.

According to them Duncan Smith has breached the European convention on human rights as he pushed through the legislation.

This made jobseekers work for free or face having their benefits stopped. Jobseekers, who submitted many job application forms, decided to complain so while the government’s plan was being investigated it was announced to be in breach with the law.

After the final decision of court appeared and government was said it had to pay the denied benefits to most of the jobseekers, it rushed a bill which had to make their actions legal and allow them to avoid “paying back money to people who didn’t do enough to find work”.

However, the government’s move was stopped because solicitor group Public Interest Lawyers, representing three jobseekers, announced it violated human rights.

In their opinion, what the government was trying to do was to retroactively alter the interpretation of a previous act.

In the opinion of Tessa Gregory of Public Interest Lawyers the denial of the government to take into consideration the jobseekers’ claims asking for their benefits, not only did act against the court ruling but also breached the right of the jobseekers.

“It interfered in an ongoing judicial process and deprived our clients of their right to claim back what was wrongly taken from them. Contrary to the assurances Iain Duncan Smith gave parliament, the legislation is not compatible with the Human Rights Act and it is in clear breach of EU law.”