The authority set up a parking scheme for an estate of house of which it was the landlord. Those not displaying parking permits were to be clamped. The appellant complained that the regulations had been imposed by council resolution, not be the passing of a byelaw. The scheme was operated by independent subcontractors. The appellant had received three ‘tickets’ and on each occasion, the basis of the charge was misdescribed. In seeking recovery of the sums extracted he argued that the scheme was invalidly imposed. The council argued that the tickets had been invalidated anyway.
Held: Parking rights were properly within the scope of management of the houses. The concept of management is to be construed widely. The matter was properly implemented by a council resolution.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKHL 17, Times 04-Mar-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 985
Bailii, House of Lords
Housing Act 1985 23(1), Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 7(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Akumah v London Borough of Hackney CA 17-Apr-2002
The council imposed a parking scheme on one of the estates for which it was landlord. A tenant challenged the scheme saying it could only have been imposed by a byelaw, not a resolution.
Held: ‘section 7(1) extends the powers of a housing . .
Cited – Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 5-Apr-2000
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established . .
Cited – Arthur and Another v Anker CA 1-Dec-1995
Clamping on Private Land may not be unlawful
The owners of private land engaged the defendants to prevent unauthorised parking. The defendants erected notices at the entrance to the car park and placed notices around the perimeter in red and white under the prominent heading ‘Warning’ and . .
Cited – Wheeldon v Burrows CA 17-Jun-1879
Quasi-Easements granted on sale of part of Estate
S owned a workshop and an adjoining plot of land. The workshop had three windows looking out over the plot. The property was sold in separate lots at auction. The land was sold with no express reservation of any easements, and then similarly the . .
Cited – Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 28-Apr-1977
The section in the 1881 Act does not apply to a quasi-easement because ‘When land is under one ownership one cannot speak in any intelligible sense of rights, or privileges, or easements being exercised over one part for the benefit of another. . .
Cited – Shelley v London County Council CA 1948
Taking into account the scope and policy of the Housing Acts, local authorities’ powers of management of housing accommodation should be construed ‘in the widest possible sense.’ . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Ealing, Ex parte Lewis CA 1992
The court was asked as to the issue of a local housing authority’s power under the 1989 Act, to expend money on ‘the repair, maintenance, supervision and management of houses and other property’.
Held: The phrase should be given ‘a wide . .
Cited – Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1991
Swap deals outwith Council powers
The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were . .
Leavt to appeal to CA – Akumah v London Borough of Hackney CA 27-Nov-2001
Application for leave to appeal. The council had introduced a parking scheme for its housing estates. The resident challenged its validity saying it had been introduced by council resolution not by byelaw. Leave granted . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Akumah v London Borough of Hackney CA 17-Apr-2002
The council imposed a parking scheme on one of the estates for which it was landlord. A tenant challenged the scheme saying it could only have been imposed by a byelaw, not a resolution.
Held: ‘section 7(1) extends the powers of a housing . .
Cited – Rochdale Borough Council v Dixon CA 20-Oct-2011
The defendant tenant had disputed payment of water service charges and stopped paying them. The Council obtained a possession order which was suspended on payment or arrears by the defendant at andpound;5.00. The tenant said that when varying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.223139 br>