The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave. Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to argue for a suspension of the order for possession. Citations: [2006] EWCA Civ … Continue reading Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand: CA 20 Dec 2006
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with its own obligations. Held: The general words of section 89 do not … Continue reading Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd: QBD 14 Jul 2003
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of Simon Brown LJ in that case should no longer be considered good law. (The same applies … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira: CA 20 May 1998
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. The receivers began possession proceedings, and a possession order was made and confirmed. She appealed saying … Continue reading McDonald v McDonald and Others: SC 15 Jun 2016
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an enforceable one, once a child’s needs had been assessed. If that had been … Continue reading Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 5 Nov 2001
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority. Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed strictly. It asked whether, if he was left homeless he would be less … Continue reading Griffin v Westminster City Council: CA 28 Jan 2004
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
