Homes and home working: a property law perspective

Michael W. Poulsom
{"title":"Homes and home working: a property law perspective","authors":"Michael W. Poulsom","doi":"10.1108/jppel-06-2022-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis purpose of this paper is to examine whether disciplines outside law demonstrate consensus on the attributes of home, whether, to the extent that there is consensus, property law supports those attributes, whether those attributes can be reconciled with working from home, and how far property law is able to address uncertainty regarding the regulation of working from home.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper identifies conceptions of “home” from non-law disciplines. It examines the extent to which property law in England and Wales supports or challenges those conceptions. It examines the extent to which working in homes disrupts or distorts those conceptions. It assesses the extent to which property law engages with that disruption.\n\n\nFindings\nA lack of clarity in how “home” is defined and perceived in non-law disciplines, and a tendency in those disciplines to produce static and decontextualized notions of home is reflected in inconsistent property law approaches to protection of important “home” attributes. Recognition by property law of the prevalence of home working is relatively undeveloped. An under-appreciation of “context” dominates both cross-disciplinary perceptions of home, and the support which property law provides to those perceptions.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis paper focuses on conceptions of “home” drawn from disparate disciplines and seeks to find consensus in a diverse field. It concentrates on the regulation by covenants of the use of homes for non-domestic purposes in England and Wales.\n\n\nPractical implications\nSuggested alterations to property law and practice, and to the imposition and construction of covenants against business use, might better reflect the prevalence of working from home and clarify the circumstances in which homes can properly be used for work purposes.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis paper identifies that in its inconsistent recognition of “home” attributes in general, and in the lack of established principles for regulating the use of homes for business purposes in particular, property law offers insufficient certainty to occupiers wishing either to work at home, or to resist doing so. It identifies that a broader cross-disciplinary investigation into the inter-relationship between living spaces and working spaces would be beneficial.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe originality of this paper lies in its examination from a property law perspective of established cross-disciplinary conceptions of home in the context of the recent growth of working in homes.\n","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jppel-06-2022-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This purpose of this paper is to examine whether disciplines outside law demonstrate consensus on the attributes of home, whether, to the extent that there is consensus, property law supports those attributes, whether those attributes can be reconciled with working from home, and how far property law is able to address uncertainty regarding the regulation of working from home. Design/methodology/approach This paper identifies conceptions of “home” from non-law disciplines. It examines the extent to which property law in England and Wales supports or challenges those conceptions. It examines the extent to which working in homes disrupts or distorts those conceptions. It assesses the extent to which property law engages with that disruption. Findings A lack of clarity in how “home” is defined and perceived in non-law disciplines, and a tendency in those disciplines to produce static and decontextualized notions of home is reflected in inconsistent property law approaches to protection of important “home” attributes. Recognition by property law of the prevalence of home working is relatively undeveloped. An under-appreciation of “context” dominates both cross-disciplinary perceptions of home, and the support which property law provides to those perceptions. Research limitations/implications This paper focuses on conceptions of “home” drawn from disparate disciplines and seeks to find consensus in a diverse field. It concentrates on the regulation by covenants of the use of homes for non-domestic purposes in England and Wales. Practical implications Suggested alterations to property law and practice, and to the imposition and construction of covenants against business use, might better reflect the prevalence of working from home and clarify the circumstances in which homes can properly be used for work purposes. Social implications This paper identifies that in its inconsistent recognition of “home” attributes in general, and in the lack of established principles for regulating the use of homes for business purposes in particular, property law offers insufficient certainty to occupiers wishing either to work at home, or to resist doing so. It identifies that a broader cross-disciplinary investigation into the inter-relationship between living spaces and working spaces would be beneficial. Originality/value The originality of this paper lies in its examination from a property law perspective of established cross-disciplinary conceptions of home in the context of the recent growth of working in homes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭与在家工作:财产法视角
本文的目的是研究法律以外的学科是否对家庭的属性表现出共识,是否在存在共识的程度上,物权法支持这些属性,这些属性是否可以与在家工作相协调,以及物权法在多大程度上能够解决在家工作监管的不确定性。设计/方法论/方法本文从非法律学科中识别“家”的概念。它考察了英格兰和威尔士物权法在多大程度上支持或挑战这些观念。它考察了在家工作在多大程度上扰乱或扭曲了这些观念。它评估了物权法在多大程度上参与了这种破坏。在非法律学科中,“家”是如何定义和感知的缺乏明确性,以及这些学科中产生静态和非情境化的家概念的趋势,反映在保护重要“家”属性的物权法方法不一致。财产法对在家办公普遍存在的承认相对不发达。对“背景”的低估主导了对家庭的跨学科看法,以及物权法为这些看法提供的支持。研究局限/启示本文关注来自不同学科的“家”概念,并寻求在不同领域找到共识。它集中在英格兰和威尔士通过契约对非家庭用途的房屋使用进行监管。实际影响建议修改财产法和惯例,以及禁止商业用途的契约的实施和构建,可能更好地反映在家工作的普遍情况,并澄清在何种情况下可以适当地将家庭用于工作目的。社会影响本文指出,由于对“家”属性的普遍认识不一致,特别是缺乏规范住宅商业用途的既定原则,物权法对希望在家工作或拒绝在家工作的占用者提供的确定性不足。它指出,对生活空间和工作空间之间的相互关系进行更广泛的跨学科调查将是有益的。本文的独创性在于,它从物权法的角度,在最近在家工作的增长背景下,对已建立的跨学科的家庭概念进行了考察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The absurdity of the modern law of town and village greens Legal framework of sustainable construction procurement to prevent land degradation: comparison between Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand Can community land trust models work in Peru? Researching community-based land tenure models for affordable housing “From the lease’s point of view”: the role of tied leases in shaping the UK pub sector Redeveloping the compact city: the challenges of strata collective sales
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1