Can I move house during the coronavirus pandemic?
Yes unless you are self-isolating, infected with Covid-19 or within a vulnerable group.
The Government has issued updated guidance on 13 May providing comprehensive advice to reflect the move to relax lock down restrictions and encourage house sales. The advice can be found here:
Key points to note
Unless you are self-isolating, infected with covid 19 or vulnerable, the guidance states that you can move house, provided you comply with social distancing measures at every stage, whether visiting a seller’s house or accepting visitors or professional for viewings, surveys and removals.
All businesses such as surveyors, estate agents and removals, linked to the housing market may now operate, provided that social distancing measures are observed and safe working procedures (see link below) are followed.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19/homes
House viewing should be conducted virtually wherever possible, and open-house viewings should not be conducted. Houses should be cleaned before and after visitors come, and home owners should vacate during viewings and surveys to minimise the chance of contact. Doors and windows should be left open, and sinks made available for hand washing.
Agents can supervise, provided they maintain social distancing.
New homes show houses should be operated on an appointment basis, and cleaned between viewings, with hand washing facilities made available. Staff should adopt safe working procedures. Housebuilder sale-staff, tradespeople, fitters and NHBC inspectors can all attend to facilitate viewings, fit out, commission equipment and inspect completed homes.
Solicitors and Estate Agents remain unable to open their premises to members of the public, for the time being. Government guidance advises that solicitors adopt special covid 19 clauses to permit flexibility on completion dates where parties become unable to move or complete for reasons connected with the pandemic.
The Law Society in conjunction with other trade and professional bodies in the sector, has published links to pan-industry guidance on the re-opening of the housing market:
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/industry-issues-guidance-kickstart-housing-market/
Related FAQs
Safeguarding issues are relatively uncommon, however, if they do occur, the normal safeguarding procedure of the organisation should be followed.
It is the individual assessment by an organisation of its Covid-19 risk in its workplace that will be central. There may be common features across sites or areas of a site but every workplace will have a different risk profile depending on the service it offers and the workers who deliver those services. No one size fits all.
The context of managing Covid-19 risk is the need to tie in with UK government guidance and HSE advice – which despite being a lot more comprehensive than it was, is not a panacea and will continue to evolve. The difficulty we have with this in the context of the known increased risk to BAME employees from Covid-19 is that our understanding of the risk is, we would suggest, at a pretty early stage which makes it more difficult to address. However we know the increased risk exists and we owe our BAME workers a duty to manage that risk and keep them safe.
We also have a duty to consult employees. This is critical in managing this risk – ensuring BAME workers have a loud voice in the assessment process will be very important.
Where an individual has a particular characteristic, for instance they’re pregnant, they have physical or mental disabilities etc, the law requires us to look at that individual or, where it is a group, that group of individuals and assess the risk to them and take any reasonably practicable steps to control the risk to them.
Risk control hierarchy is key. In “normal” businesses we reduce our Covid-19 risk by keeping people away from the workplace – “avoid, eliminate and substitute” then changing work practices (e.g. social distancing measures) before we arrive at PPE. In a healthcare context, we arrive at PPE a lot more quickly.
We need to ensure our people are given sufficient information, instruction and training so they can do their jobs safely and we must consult workers and involve them in workplace safety – this is going to be critical in the context of Covid-19.
Similar to the position for claims between 1 August 2020 and 31 October 2020, for claims between 1 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 there will be a cost to businesses of furloughing staff, which will gradually increase until the scheme closes at the end of September as follows.
- From 1 July 2021 employers will be required to contribute 10% of wages, with the Government contributing 70%.
- From 1 August 2021, the employer contribution increases to 20% and the Government will contribute 60%.
- 30 September 2021: scheme closes.
Employees will continue to receive 80% of their current wages, up to £2,500 a month.
This is unlikely. Frustration is a doctrine rarely used as a way of getting out of leases. It operates to bring a lease to an early end because of the effect of a supervening event. It is then not a concept readily applicable to a situation where one party is looking to get out of a lease. To be able to argue the doctrine of frustration, you must be able to demonstrate that something unforeseeable has happened that makes it impossible to fulfil the lease and unjust to hold a party to its obligations.
This is not something that can be demonstrated easily.
There was a case in the High Court last year when the doctrine of frustration was looked at in a case involving the European Medical Agency.
The court found that Brexit did not frustrate EMA’s lease. EMA was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, but unfortunately, the parties settled out of court so the arguments were not tested in the higher court.
Another reason why frustration is likely to fail is an argument that, whilst the current lockdown may force closures to businesses and whilst such closures maybe for a lengthy period, such closures will only be temporary.
It is envisaged that employees of organisations falling into the first two categories set out above and won’t be eligible for the job retention scheme in relation to the majority of their employees. It is envisaged that NHS Trusts for example are going to require their staff to be working at full capacity where possible. However, the guidance doesn’t definitely exclude public sector organisations from furloughing employees and notably the government expects such organisations to use public money to continue to pay staff and not furlough them, rather than say requires. In reality, it is difficult to see how such an organisation will be able to rely on the scheme, but the guidance doesn’t completely rule it out.