other Bailiffs lock doctors out of Coombswood Surgery in Halesowen

[Peterbard]

Bailiffs lock doctors out of Coombswood Surgery in Halesowen

 

Mohammed Waqas, of Evergreen Pharmacist opposite on the Coombs Road surgery, said: "The staff turned up for work but could not get in as the locks had been changed.

 

He added: "We are disappointed that the patient experience has been affected in this way, as are the practice, but we are assured that they are working hard to maintain patient services from their other sites."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-36434956

[Bailiff Advice]

Bailiffs lock doctors out of Coombswood Surgery in Halesowen

 

Mohammed Waqas, of Evergreen Pharmacist opposite on the Coombs Road surgery, said: "The staff turned up for work but could not get in as the locks had been changed.

 

He added: "We are disappointed that the patient experience has been affected in this way, as are the practice, but we are assured that they are working hard to maintain patient services from their other sites."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-36434956

 

This repossesion has been a 'hot topic' of conversation since early yesterday morning and it would seem that this is not the first doctors surgery that has been subject to similar action (reposession). The same has happened to a couple of surgeries in the Sussex area.

 

The Care Quality Commission really does need to investigate why doctors are unable to manage their finances to such an extent that they cannot afford to pay the rent to the private landlord.

 

As is always the case, the press only report a small amount of information.

[brassnecked]

Perhaps the rent should be forwarded to the LL by the Health Trust? No wait a minute some jobsworth would neglect to pay it.

[citizenB]

Why didn't they ensure the rent was paid ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Why didn't they ensure the rent was paid ?

 

Naturally we only have brief details of the background, but from the notices left, it would seem that the surgery did not pay their rent to a private landlords. If so, it would seem that this is totally avoidable. The following guidance is from the British Medical Association:

 

 

 

 

Leasehold Rent Reimbursements

 

Contractors

who rent their premises are eligible to receive reimbursement for their rental costs.

The level of leasehold rent that may be granted is determined by the current market rental (CMR) value of the premises, or the actual lease rent, whichever is lower.

 

The CMR value of the premises is as assessed by independent valuation conducted by the District Valuer, who must determine what might be reasonably expected to be paid by a tenant for the premises at the date of valuation.

 

The level of leasehold rent reimbursement paid to the contractor must be reviewed when the landlord undertakes a rent review provided for in the respective lease, unless the review does not result in any change to the level of rent being charged.

 

Under the 2013 Premises Cost Directions, when the CMR is to be reviewed, practices are required to provide the Area Team with a Rent Review Memorandum (RRM), a signed agreement between the tenant and the landlord stating any changes made to the level of rent being charged.

 

 

PS: The information in the following link is well worth reading !!

 

 

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/gp-practices/premises/focus-on-rent-reimbursements-for-gp-premises

[Peterbard]

Just lookng through this info, it seems to cover rent paid to NHS owned property and not private landlords. Do GPs not rent from private landlords or have i missed something.

[ploddertom]

It may be an emotive subject but if this had been the pub landlord not having paid his rent then little sympathy would be given. No difference really when it boils down to it, it's a commercial proposition & if you don't pay then you face the consequences.

[Peterbard]

Just lookng through this info, it seems to cover rent paid to NHS owned property and not private landlords. Do GPs not rent from private landlords or have i missed something.

 

Yes i had missed something, it also says private landlords.

 

Yes you would have thought that there would have been some protection in place.

[Coughdrop]

I think many don't realise quite how tight a GP's practice budget is nowadays. There are many surgeries facing closure due to either this, or an inability to recruit doctors to their practices.

 

As Plodder says though, at the end of the day it is a business, and had it been a pub or a local garage somewhere, it would not have been newsworthy.

[Peterbard]

Without a lit more info it would be guessing as to who was to blame here.

[Coughdrop]

Yes, true enough. It is usually the case with press articles that we'd like more information than is readily available. As yet, I cannot find any significant further press releases about this, though the premises is part of a group of practices, and patients are being looked after from other surgeries - not ideal for them, but better than nothing.

[Bailiff Advice]

This repossesion has been a 'hot topic' of conversation since early yesterday morning and it would seem that this is not the first doctors surgery that has been subject to similar action (reposession).

 

As is always the case, the press only report a small amount of information.

 

This particular case was discussed at a meeting that I was at yesterday.

 

It is reported on a social media site that apparently, the practice manager had instructed a solicitor with a view to making a 'section 78' application to set aside the order' and furthermore, that a 'supplier company' intends to issue an interpleader application in relation to the leased medical equipment that was in the doctors surgery.

 

It is also alleged that the landlord had used the 'schedule 12 procedure' to the recover 'unpaid rent'.

 

As I have said on this forum many times, individuals (and companies) should take great care when considering taking legal proceedings. They should also ensure that any solicitor they approach understands the legal position.

 

The truth behind this case, is that the enforcement company (The Sheriffs Office) were instructed by the Landlord to assist with a ‘Forfeiture of Lease’ (technically a provision under Common Law). Why a 'section 178 application' is being considered is most odd given that there was no order (or writ).

 

Furthermore, with a ‘Forfeiture of Lease’ there is no requirement for a Notice of Enforcement

 

Also, there cannot be any grounds for an 'interpleader' application given that the goods inside the surgery were not seized. The owner of any goods merely has to contact the Landlord to arrange for their collection. The same applies to the patient files.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the closure of the doctors surgery was a not in relation to a high court writ. Accordingly, the 'Schedule 12' procedure would not have applied.

[Peterbard]

It still leaves the question how the arrears were allowed to occur. You would have thought that since these provide a public service...

[ploddertom]

This particular case was discussed at a meeting that I was at yesterday.

 

It is reported on a social media site that apparently, the practice manager had instructed a solicitor with a view to making a 'section 78' application to set aside the order' and furthermore, that a 'supplier company' intends to issue an interpleader application in relation to the leased medical equipment that was in the doctors surgery.

 

It is also alleged that the landlord had used the 'schedule 12 procedure' to the recover 'unpaid rent'.

 

As I have said on this forum many times, individuals (and companies) should take great care when considering taking legal proceedings. They should also ensure that any solicitor they approach understands the legal position.

 

The truth behind this case, is that the enforcement company (The Sheriffs Office) were instructed by the Landlord to assist with a ‘Forfeiture of Lease’ (technically a provision under Common Law). Why a 'section 178 application' is being considered is most odd given that there was no order (or writ).

 

Furthermore, with a ‘Forfeiture of Lease’ there is no requirement for a Notice of Enforcement

 

Also, there cannot be any grounds for an 'interpleader' application given that the goods inside the surgery were not seized. The owner of any goods merely has to contact the Landlord to arrange for their collection. The same applies to the patient files.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the closure of the doctors surgery was a not in relation to a high court writ. Accordingly, the 'Schedule 12' procedure would not have applied.

 

Oh dear - another one?

[Coughdrop]

It still leaves the question how the arrears were allowed to occur. You would have thought that since these provide a public service...

 

I agree. it makes one wonder why the breach was not remedied in time as well. I think the Practice Manager may have some tough questions to answer, unless it was a backdoor way to reduce the overall practice by one surgery.

[Bailiff Advice]

It still leaves the question how the arrears were allowed to occur. You would have thought that since these provide a public service...

 

As I have said many times, press reports only provide brief details with background information lacking.

 

The notice displayed (by the Landlord and not the Sheriffs Office) may provide a bit more detail. It stated that the action had been taken due to 'persistent non payment of rent'. This would seem to indicate that non payment of rent was a longstanding problem.

[ploddertom]

I think you have to remember businesses like these are sometimes run remotely - a bit like if I dare say it Capita - and are run solely for one reason only & that is to make a profit. Even if run by the practice themselves I would imagine paying rent would be one of the last things they would think about. They possibly don't understand that you only have to be 1 day late paying the rent for it to end up causing problems.

[Peterbard]

However which ever way you look at it this action occurred through none payment of rent. It is little different than turning up at your A and E and finding it closed, if that happened there would be hell to pay..

 

Just saying that there is a public interest issue here.

[Coughdrop]

As I said earlier, I think the Practice Manager will be facing some tough questions if they still have a job) after this. As Bailiff Advice said, the word 'persistent' means it has been an ongoing issue, and as Plodder said, at the end of the day, a GP's surgery is just a business like any other.