Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Housing - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Newcastle City Council v Morrison; CA 2000 - (2000) 32 HLR 891

 
 Portsmouth City Council v Bryant; CA 2000 - (2000) 32 HLR 906
 
Gracechurch International v Tribhovan [2000] 33 HLR 263; [2000] July Legal Action 29
2000
CA

Housing
The tenant disputed the effectiveness of a notice to terminate his tenancy. Held: The date set was incorrect, and the notice was invalid.


 
 Azimi v Newham London Borough Council; 2000 - (2000) 33 HLR 51

 
 Regina, Ex Parte Spath Holme Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and The Regions, Secretary of State For Wales; CA 20-Jan-2000 - Times, 15 February 2000

 
 Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc; CA 21-Jan-2000 - Times, 11 February 2000; [2001] QB 97; [2000] EWCA Civ 7; [2000] 2 All ER 597; [2000] NPC 5; (2000) 32 HLR 481; [2000] 3 WLR 481
 
Regina v South Ribble Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board, ex parte Hamilton [2000] EWCA Civ 518; (2001) 33 HLR 9
24 Jan 2000
CA
Henry, Robert Walker LJJ, Scott Baker J
Benefits, Housing
A statutory provision entitled a person to housing benefit if he had no income above a specified amount, and it had been previously decided that receipt of income support under the separate social security scheme, with its inbuilt rights of adjudication and appeal, bound those administering the housing benefit scheme to treat a person as having income below the specified amount. Mr Hamilton had however obtained income support by false statements. Held: Income support obtained by fraud did not count for the purposes of entitlement to housing benefit. One reason was an express provision in the relevant regulations defining "a person on income support as a person lawfully in receipt of income support", but another was the principle that "legislation should not be so construed as to enable a man to profit from his own wrong":
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Laimond Properties Ltd v Raeuchle [2000] EGI
24 Jan 2000
CA
Sir Richard Scott V-C, Chadwick LJ
Housing
The landlord acquired the freehold of a small block of flats in 1993. The defendant had been a tenant protected under the Rent Acts since 1976. He also made use of a neighburing empty room without paying rent. His rent was nearly all paid through housing benenefits, but a shortfall grew, and possession proceedings were begun, with a claim for damages for trespass in the adjoining room. The tenant resisted possession proceedings alleging a failure to repair. He now appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim and the grant of possession. Held: The appeal succeeded. The grant of a suspension as requested by the tenant was a matter of the judge's discretion which could be interfered with only if the decision was flawed. S103(3) did not allow the imposition of payment obligation other than those for rent. The judge had not properly considered whether the sum of £10.00 offered by the tenant would be likely to succeed in discharging the arrears of £511.00, but had instead considered extraneous factors for the sum claimed for trespass. The judge should also have restricted his consideration to the matters pleaded.
1 Cites


 
Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Lumley [2000] EWHC Admin 285; (2001) 33 HLR 11
28 Jan 2000
Admn
Brooke LJ
Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crawley Borough Council v Bliss Gazette, 09 March 2000; Times, 28 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 50; (2000) 32 HLR 636
22 Feb 2000
CA
Buxton, Chadwick LJJ
Housing
A local authority refused the applicants application for emergency housing as a homeless person. On the review of that decision the authority concluded that she did have priority need, but then decided that the application should be refused because it found she was intentionally homeless. The decision was a public law decision, but this did not mean that a decision once made could not necessarily be revisited. The new grounds could not be ignored, and the factual conclusions could not be challenged. An appeal to the county court raised the question of whether the whole circumstances justified a relief in public law, and a new ground for refusal arising upon such a revisiting of the decision could only be ignored on public law grounds.
Housing Act 1985
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls Times, 15 March 2000; (2000) 32 HLR 770
1 Mar 2000
CA
Laws LJ, Jonathan Parker LK, Evans LJ
Local Government, Housing, Land
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as to allow further building. He had obtained planning permission for the proposed development. When the council refused, the surviving purchaser sought judicial review of that refusal. Held: The purchaser's appeal succeeded. The council had confirmed that the property had been sold at its full market value, without any adjustment to reflect any possible development value, but then adjusted with the appropiate discount. The council now said that it had imposed the covenant in order to retain to itself any development value. It is established law that a council may act under any Act only for purposes allowed by that enabling Act. Despite its assertion, the council had not imposed the covenant with a view to assist in making the properties more affordable generally. The Act set out the elements to be considered in setting the valuation. The purpose of reserving any development value to itself was not one permitted by the Act under which it had been sold. The purpose of the Act was to permit former tenants to enjoy the full range of benefits of land ownership as were enjoyed by other land owners. What was reasonable was what would be reasonable to both parties, not just one. The council might reserve rights which properly affected its remaining estate, for example in the control of noise or other nuisance, but this was not such a purpose. The restrictive covenant was void and the council could not demand any payment for its removal.
Laws LJ considered the principle in Padfield: "The rule is not that the exercise of the power is only to be condemned if it is incapable of promoting the Act's policy, rather the question always is: what was the decision-maker's purpose in the instant case and was it calculated to promote the policy of the Act?"
Housing Act 1985 127(2) Sch6 para 5
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Grogan v Greenwich London Borough Council Gazette, 02 March 2000; Times, 28 March 2000
2 Mar 2000
CA

Housing, Local Government
A youth had left care, and been given a secure tenancy. He was convicted of an offence, including one for having stolen goods at the flat. He was sentenced to six months detention, and the council applied for possession. On release he asked for the possession to be suspended, but the order was made. On appeal the order was suspended. The court had to balance the need to protect society by allowing a youth an opportunity to establish a life against the needs of the neighbourhood.
Housing Act 1985 85

 
London Borough of Brent v Botu [2000] EWCA Civ 65
8 Mar 2000
CA
Beldam, Otton, Judge LJJ
Housing
Appeal against order finding a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment given by it as landlord.
Housing Act 1985
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v London Borough of Greenwich ex parte Glen International and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 81
17 Mar 2000
CA

Local Government, Housing
Appeal against quashing of decision to reject applications for housing renovation grants.
[ Bailii ]
 
Shepping and another v Osada Times, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The time limit on the recovery of possession of property subject to a tenancy to within one year of the landlord becoming aware of the death of the tenant required proceedings to have been issued within the year. The service of the notice requiring possession did not satisfy the requirement which was strictly for proceedings.
Housing Act 1988 Sch2 Part 1 Ground 7

 
Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Glen International Ltd and Another Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 28 April 2000
29 Mar 2000
CA

Local Government, Housing
The council had issued notices requiring renovation works. The property owner applied for grants to cover such works, but the application was refused on the basis that no estimate accompanied the application. It was held that the grants were intended to be mandatory. The council had discretion to accept applications without this information, and in this case could not refuse the grant.
Housing Act 1985 189, 190 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 113

 
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Lemeh Unreported, 3 April 2000
3 Apr 2000
CA
Nourse LJ
Housing
The court noted that there was no reported case in which it had actually been decided "that oppression can include oppression caused by misleading information given by the court office", and continued: "In principle, I am unable to see why oppression of that kind should not be included. The way in which that ground is usually stated is `oppression in the execution of the warrant'. Once the warrant has been obtained, its execution is a matter between the court and the tenant. It is the officer of the court who executes the warrant and the landlord has no part in that process. Moreover, there seems to be no reason why oppression should be confined to oppressive conduct on the part of the landlord or some other person. It ought to include any state of affairs which is oppressive to the tenant."
1 Citers


 
Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd v Pope Times, 07 June 2000; [2000] 22 EG 147; [2000] 1 WLR 1941; [2000] EWCA Civ 425
6 Apr 2000
CA
Morritt LJ, Waller LJ, Tucker LJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought to assert that he occupied a houseboat, the Dinty Moore, under a tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the 1988 Act. The claimant appealed a decision that it was. Held: A house-boat, even though used as a dwelling, did not have the character of a house sufficiently to allow an assured tenancy of it to arise. This could only happen if the boat itself became affixed to the land so as to become part of it. In this case the boat would float for several hours each day as the tide rose, and the boat could quite easily be moved to a different mooring. It was a chattel and was not inherently capable of becoming real property.
Housing Act 1988
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark; CA 13-Apr-2000 - Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 128; [2000] 1 WLR 1672
 
Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Khan and Hussain [2000] EWHC Admin 334
19 Apr 2000
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Manel and Others v Memon; CA 20-Apr-2000 - Times, 20 April 2000; [2000] 2 EGLR 40

 
 Minchin v Sheffield City Council; CA 26-Apr-2000 - Times, 26 April 2000
 
Taj v Ali Gazette, 28 April 2000
28 Apr 2000
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A tenant was in very substantial arrears, but succeeded in having a claim for failure to repair set off against them leaving thirteen thousand pounds outstanding. The judge ordered possession but suspended it on terms which would require the arrears to be paid off over 55 years. The landlord's appeal succeeded. The judge had already allowed for the landlord's delay in acting, and such an order could only be made where the tenant had a prospect of paying off the arrears within a reasonable and definite time.

 
Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes Unreported, 8 May 2000
8 May 2000
CA
Waller LJ, Arden J
Housing
The tenant had been misled both by the respondent Council and by the court. Held: (Waller LJ) "Mr Hughes has made out a case that he received misleading advice from the court. He has also made out a case that he was misled as to the procedures that were available to him i.e. a procedure available under s.85(2). In those circumstances, he has made out a case of oppression ..." (Arden J) "It is clear from the authorities that oppression includes oppressive conduct which effectively deprives a tenant of his opportunity to apply for a stay (see the Hill case). The position in this case is due to a combination of factors . . There was first the local authority's letter and the conversation with the housing officer . . both of which indicated that payment in full of all arrears was required to avoid eviction . . [Mr Hughes] went to the court office where he was given inaccurate information. He was told that eviction papers had not been issued . . The ingredients of oppression in a case such as this have not been defined by the court. The court has stressed that what amounts to oppression depends on the circumstances, but it seems clear to me that the lack of opportunity would not have occurred if Mr Hughes had not been wrongly advised by the court or if the local authority had not given the impression that he had to pay the arrears in full. I agree with Waller LJ that the result is unfair to Mr Hughes."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex Parte Khan and Another Times, 09 May 2000
9 May 2000
QBD

Housing
A person became threatened with homelessness once a court had ordered possession of a property. A local authority investigation the homelessness need must begin to act at that point rather than to await the point at which the possession order was executed, by which time the applicant had become homeless. Once the person was so threatened the authority must commence the process.
Housing Act 1985 184


 
 Laine v Cadwallader; CA 26-May-2000 - (2000) 33 HLR 397; (2000) 80 P & CR D44; [2001] L & TR 8; [2000] EWCA Civ 5562; (2001) 33 HLR 36

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O'Byrne; QBD 8-Jun-2000 - Gazette, 08 June 2000
 
Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Housing Benefit Review Board, Ex Parte Kapur Times, 28 June 2000
28 Jun 2000
QBD

Housing, Benefits
An application for a loan or grant toward the costs of repair could constitute steps being taken to make premises habitable. The applicant owned a substantial property which had fallen into disrepair. He claimed housing benefit for the property where he actually lived. The refusal of housing benefit because of the capital value of the other property was incorrect. The rules allowed a disregard for the value of a property being repaired.
Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 Sch 5 para 27

 
Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council Gazette, 06 July 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; Times, 04 August 2000; (2001) 33 HLR 40
6 Jul 2000
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A flat had been let without heating. The tenant complained at the consequent damp and condensation. The authority claimed it was not obliged to put the property into a better condition under a clause saying it agreed 'to maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair' and there was no structural damage. The tenant had not been legally advised and the tenancy was a social one. Held: The words were to be taken in a non technical way, and could include an obligation to take steps to prevent the mould and condensation, if necessary by way of heating. The failure to provide insulation or lining allowed excessive condensation and mould. The council had failed to maintain the flat in good condition.
1 Citers



 
 Forebury Estates Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Panel and Others; QBD 11-Jul-2000 - Times, 11 July 2000
 
Regina v the Housing Benefit Review Board of the London Borugh of Camden ex parte Ramatola Hassani-Kazhadeh [2000] EWHC Admin 378
26 Jul 2000
Admn

Housing, Benefits

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex Parte Sadiq Times, 27 July 2000; Gazette, 20 July 2000
27 Jul 2000
QBD

Housing
A housing authority which had made a decision that it had a duty to provide accommodation, could not revisit that decision once it became aware of a change of circumstances. At the time of the decision the applicant had his son living with him. After the decision but before being housed, the child was ordered to return to his mother. The applicant need not proceed by a review of the authority's second decision.


 
 Deadman v Southwark London Borough Council; CA 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 19 October 2000
 
Regina v Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Hersi Times, 11 October 2000
11 Oct 2000
CA

Housing
Where a housing authority had considered and dealt with the rehousing of a substantial family, a renewed application by an adult daughter could be refused. The refusal to accept accommodation by the mother was effective as an offer for the entire household, which included in this instance the applicant. The offer and effect of its refusal was binding even though the daughter did not know of it.
Housing Act 1985


 
 Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon; HL 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 01 November 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 1555; [2000] UKHL 52; [2001] 1 EGLR 47; [2001] BPIR 17; [2001] 1 AC 378; (2001) 81 P & CR DG11; (2001) 33 HLR 42; [2000] 4 All ER 897; [2001] L & TR 2; [2000] NPC 110; [2000] EG 119; [2001] 06 EG 164
 
Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 276; [2001] 2 All ER 865
2 Nov 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. After the grant of the tenancy, the Association had changed in status from being fully mutual. Held: The tenant's appeal succeeded. A tenancy from a mutual housing association created in 1985 was neither protected nor secure, and the Housing Act 1985 did not alter that status. However the later Act did operate, when the association converted from its mutual status, to change the tenancy to a secure tenancy, and that in turn gave the tenant a right to buy. The conversion led to the 'landlord condition' becoming fulfilled.
Jonathan Parker LJ said: "paragraph 4(a) in my judgment provides a saving for existing tenancies in respect of which, immediately prior to the commencement date, the "landlord condition" was satisfied (so that they were secure tenancies), but in respect of which the "landlord condition" would otherwise have ceased to be satisfied as from the commencement date, by virtue of the repeals: e.g. a tenancy where the landlord immediately before the commencement date was a non-mutual association. The saving is achieved not by providing that such tenancies shall continue as secure tenancies until such time as the non-mutual association disposes of its interest to an authority or body which is not included in the amended list, for that would be inconsistent with the "ambulatory" nature of the statutory code. Rather, the saving is achieved by preserving the unamended "landlord condition" in relation to such a tenancy, so that it will be a secure tenancy at any time in the future when the interest of the landlord belongs to an authority or body within the unamended section 80 (e.g. a non-mutual association)."
Housing Act 1985 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 - Housing Act 1988 sch18 p4(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Clarke and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 3032
20 Nov 2000
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Birmingham City Council v Oakley; HL 29-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 59; [2001] 1 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 1936; [2001] 1 AC 617

 
 Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another; ChD 30-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000

 
 Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others; CA 1-Dec-2000 - Times, 01 December 2000; (2001) 33 HLR 18

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited; HL 7-Dec-2000 - Times, 13 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 61; [2001] 2 AC 349; [2001] 1 All ER 195; [2001] 2 WLR 15; (2001) 33 HLR 31

 
 Kadhim v Housing Benefit Board, London Borough of Brent; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 27 March 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 344; [2001] 2 WLR 1674; [2001] QB 955
 
Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 357; (2001) EGCS 4; (2001) LGR 228; [2001] 33 HLR 56
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton
Housing, Local Government, Nuisance
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour's aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: "there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.