000			01819cab a22002415a 4500
001			L148592
008			091007e20090912xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u148592
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aRedstone plc Mortgages v Welch
260			_c2009
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(936) 12 September 2009, 98-107 (10)
490			_aEstates Gazette Law Reports _v[2009] 36 EG 98
520			_a[2009], 22 June 2009. The case relates to a claim for possession following a sale and rent back transaction. The second and third defendant (J), after falling in arrears for the payment of their mortgage, decided to sell their property to a sale and rent back company, Repossessions Stopped (R). At the time of the transaction, they were assured of being able to remain in the property for the rest of their lives as long as they observed the conditions of tenancy. That right would be passed on to their daughter, should they pass away. R bought the property but later fell in arrears with the mortgage to the claimant M. M sought repossession of the property occupied by J. J argued that they were assured tenants. M contested this and rejected any responsibility towards J. "Held": application dismissed. The judge considered that J had an assured tenancy. J was entitled to their rights by proprietary estoppel. J's rights were overriding interests which took priority over the claimant right's under the mortgage. J has the right whether or not to set aside the transaction.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aREDSTONE MORTGAGES PLC V WELCH AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aANDREWS V CUNNINGHAM
650	2	4	_aLAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1988
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
942			_n0
999			_c81899 _d81899