Category: Housing

Oakley v Birmingham City Council: QBD 8 Jan 1999

The justices had concluded that the layout itself of premises was so unhygienic as to be ‘in a state prejudicial to health.’ The small toilets without a wash basin and next to the kitchen created a risk of cross-infection, and were a statutory nuisance.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v Oakley HL 29-Nov-2000
When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.84406

Milton Parkins v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Westminster: CA 23 Jul 1997

Application for leave to appeal – possession order – whether letting to probationary teacher was an assured tenancy – leave granted.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2170

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Full Appeal – Parkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .

Cited by:

Leave to appeal – Parkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.142567

Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2): CA 3 Oct 1996

The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient majority under the Act.
Held: The individual tenant’s right not to participate in the purchase of a freehold was not to be lost by contract. Each of the tenants is acting in his own interests, although the benefits sought to be obtained may vary. While the agent may be vulnerable to changes of mind, the appointment did not confer a property or security interest on him which would entitle him to insist on the now unwilling tenant proceeding.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 657, [1998] QB 1

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 6 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd HL 1940
Where a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of an existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he will do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of . .
See Also – Mainwaring v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 1) CA 20-Feb-1996
The claimant sought an order allowing the sale of the freehold of the building where she occupied an apartment. The trustees, when proposing to sell the building to the trustees of the Wellcome Trust, should have served notice under section 5 of the . .
Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
Cited – Smart and another v Sandars and Others CCP 12-May-1848
A factor to whom goods have been consigned generally for sale, and who has subsequently made advances to his principal on the credit of the goods, has no right to sell them, contrary to the orders of his principal, on the latter neglecting, on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.140524

Rogerson v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: 2005

The court considered both whether Mohamed v. Manek was still binding and whether the facts of the case were covered by the prior decision, having regard in particular to the emphasis on transience which emerges from the judgment of Nourse LJ. Heled: The court referred to a possible situation in which the authority permits the occupier to remain in the premises for a period which is no longer reasonably referable to the decision to accommodate him temporarily pending enquiries.

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2005] HLR 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.242936

Shala and Another v Birmingham City Council: CA 27 Jun 2007

The claimants succeeded in their applications for asylum, and then applied for housing assistance. They now appealed refusal of such assistance. The issue was how the authority had treated their medical evidence in the review process. Mrs Shala was receiving treatment for depression.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Housing authorities should be careful not to hide behind the details of medical reports in order to refuse merited applications for emergency housing assistance: ‘care has to be taken by local authorities not to appear to be using professional medical advisers simply to provide or shore up reasons for a refusal. ‘ In this case the authority had refused to take into account further medical evidence which indicated a condition more serious than that considered by the adviser. Where a medical adviser wishes to discount evidence by doctors who have seen the patient, the authority should either allow that he has not himself seen the applicant, or arrange for him to see them, or to talk directly with the doctor who has seen the patient.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Sedley LJ, Lightman J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 624, Times 06-Jul-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
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 . .
Cited – Khelassi v London Borough of Brent CA 7-Dec-2006
The court considered the use of medical expert evidence in applications for emergency housing. . .
Cited – Hall v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 17-Dec-2004
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.253709

Isaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd: 1960

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.192088

Higgs v Brighton and Hove City Council: CA 30 Jun 2003

The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster?
Held: There was in fact no explanation available for the loss, and it was not proper to require the applicant to provide one. Nevertheless, in this case, the applicant was already homeles by the time of the caravan being lost, and accordingly the appeal failed since his application failed under the earlier criteria.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown (Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division) Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 895, B2/2003/0324, Times 11-Jul-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bristol County Court Ex Parte Bradic CA 1-Sep-1995
An unlawful eviction did not of itself constitute an emergency giving the applicant ‘priority need’ for housing. The event that results in the homelessness of the person claiming a priority need must have the characteristics of being ‘an emergency’ . .
Cited – Noble v South Herefordshire District Council CA 1983
The argument (that the word ’emergency’ was used in a wider sense than emergencies confined to emergencies arising from disaster) had no force in this case because in the phrase ‘any emergency such as flood, fire or any other disaster’ the words ‘or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.184072

Baxter v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden (2): CA 5 Nov 1998

A tenant taking a lease of defective premises could not complain of nuisance arising from that defect in the absence of contractual or statutory obligations. Poor sound-proofing between flats no nuisance where there was no sound-proofing standard applicable

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1703, [2001] QB1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145182

London Borough of Enfield v Dasgupta: CA 2 Nov 1998

The claimant sought possession of property occupied by the defendant. She had moved into the property held under a secure tenancy by a tenant, and stayed on after that tenant’s death. She appealed against the possession order.
Held: The grounds of application, that the case should have been adjourned, and that no money judgement had been made were not made out. Further evidence as to her medical condition and as to a letter about the rent did not add to her case. Leave to appeal refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton-Thomas, Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1657

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145136

Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Von Goetz: CA 8 Oct 1998

A ten year shorthold tenancy agreement which was not executed under deed constituted an equitable interest, and since more than five years remained, the tenant had sufficient interest to found a claim for a council grant for renovation and repairs. The concept of an equitable term of years is well known to the law.

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1507, (1999) 31 HLR 669, [1999] QB 1019, [1999] BLGR 135, [1999] 2 WLR 582, [1998] EG 137

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Part VIII

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Von Goetz Admn 11-Dec-1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
Cited – Alexander-David v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 1-Apr-2009
The authority was required to provide housing to the minor applicant, but she was too young to hold a legal estate. An equitable lease had been created, and she now appealed against an order for possession having broken the terms of the agreement, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144986

Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh: CA 15 Sep 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1435

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 S2 g11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .

Cited by:

See Also – Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 13-May-1999
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent.
Held: A notice which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144914

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Saint: CA 21 Aug 1998

The council requested a warrant for possession be issued on the basis of certified arrears of pounds 333 when they were in breach of their statutory duty to assist the tenant in his claim for housing benefit and save for pounds 28, were relying on the product of their own wrongdoing. There were further irregularities in the application for the warrant. Finding the council’s conduct oppressive, the court distinguished Aldwinckle on the footing that whereas in that case it was far from clear that a s.85(2) application would have succeeded, in Saint the likelihood of a suspension being ordered was conceded. ‘The categories of oppression are not closed and the court must have the power to intervene in the interests of justice in an appropriate case to correct the position where its procedures have been used unfairly to the oppression of a party.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1407, [1998] 31 HLR 620

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden v Akanni CA 31-Jan-1997
The context in which the court is willing in a rare, but appropriate, case to intervene to nullify the execution of a warrant for possession goes back to the principles set out in McHenry v Lewis. . .
Distinguished – Leicester City Council v Aldwinckle CA 1991
A tenant was evicted while absent from the premises for some months through illness and who, following her breach of the suspended possession order, received no notice whatever either of the council’s application for a warrant, or of the issue of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144886

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Osei-Bonsu: CA 22 Oct 1998

Where one joint tenant had given notice and the landlord mistakenly excluded the other tenant, the husband, from possession, the landlord could not rely on the defence of ‘reasonable cause’. The tenant has the choice of possession or statutory damages. Statutory damages had been agreed between the parties’ representatives at 30,000 pounds. The Council now argued that the true figure should have been nil, because of the precarious nature of the husband’s rights of occupation, he being vulnerable to the giving of a 28 day valid notice to quit by the wife to the council, after which he would have no defence to eviction.
Held: The husband’s appeal succeeded. The parties should not be allowed, on appeal, to go back on their agreement as to damages.
Simon Brown LJ, said that if the point had remained open, it would: ‘have had a very considerable impact upon the damages. As at 18 June 1990, the respondent’s tenure was in the highest degree precarious, wholly dependent in law upon his wife not serving a valid notice to quit as she was clearly anxious to do. Even giving the respondent the benefit of all possible doubts as to the true extent to which his continuing rights in the property reduced its open market value, and recognising not least that he could undoubtedly have put the local authority to some expense and delay in securing the wife’s necessary further co-operation and obtaining and executing the necessary court order for possession, I would have assessed statutory damages here at no more than andpound;2,000.’
It was argued for the husband that since the notional sale contemplated by the formula in s.28(1) and (3) was deemed to take place at the time of the valuation, a purchaser from the council would have had no power to compel or persuade the wife to give a notice to quit (for example by offering her alternative accommodation), so that the husband’s tenancy was by no means as fragile as it might seem. Simon Brown replied: ‘The clear answer to this argument, I am satisfied, lies in Mr Arden’s submission that what is being valued is the interest of the landlord in default, not the abstract interest of a notional willing buyer. Although the concept of a willing buyer helps to fix the respective valuations, one postulates the landlord’s continuing ownership in fact.’

Judges:

Simon Brown, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-1998, Gazette 04-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1594, [1999] L and TR 246, (1999) 31 HLR 515, [1999] 1 WLR 1011

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Loveridge CA 10-May-2013
The Council had been found to have unlawfully evicted the respondent, and now appealed against the calculation of statutory damages awarded. It said that the court should in its valuation have allowed for the propensity for a move from a secure . .
Cited – Loveridge v London Borough of Lambeth SC 3-Dec-2014
The Council had granted a weekly secure tenancy of the premises to the appellant. The Court considered the calculation of damages awarded for an unlawful eviction of a residential tenant.
Held: Section 28(1)(a) requires the basis of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.90285

O’Neill v Williams: 1984

Citations:

[1984] HLR 1

Statutes:

Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Metropolitan Housing Trust v Hadjazi CA 1-Jul-2010
The Trust appealed against refusal of an order for possession against its periodic assured tenant. The grounds were 14 (nuisance or annoyance), and 14A (domestic violence). The judge had found that the violence complained of occurred only after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.420228

Sopwith v Stuchbury: 1983

The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent increase would have been unlawful because of certain provisions of the Rent Act.

Citations:

(1983) 17 HLR 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192087

Fairstate Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another: CA 21 Mar 2005

The company challenged an enforcement notice. It had used premises to provide temporary sleeping accommodation for more than ten years but without a planning consent to change of use. There was a break of five months after the after the first ten year period, whilst it was used as longer term accommodation, but then it reverted to the short term use. The Court was now asked: ‘what if any breach of planning control occurs where the use to which a London flat was put changed over three stages, 1) for more than ten years as temporary sleeping accommodation which made that use lawful, but 2) with a change for about five months to longer-term residential occupation, and finally 3) reverting back for the next four years to temporary sleeping accommodation. ‘
Held: The break was sufficient to constitute a deemed material change of use so as to allow the enforcement proceedings to begin. There was nothing unfair in the Council’s policy’s and the landowners use was in breach.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Carnwath LJ, Lord Slynn of Hadley

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 283

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 25 57(10, Greater London (General Powers) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.276353

Hickey v London Borough of Haringey: CA 10 Apr 2006

The authority sought to apply the exception so as to deprive its tenant of security of possession.
Held: In order to succeed in removing protection, the landlord authority had to establish each of the four statutory requirements. The scheme was intended to encourage private landlords, but in order to apply the scheme, there had to be just one provision for the lessor to obtain vacant possession at the time specified. Without that 6(b) would not be satisfied.

Judges:

Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 05-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch1 p6(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.240173

London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Sandra Ison: 8 Sep 2003

(Romford County Court) ‘A judge who adjourns the hearing of a ground 8 possession claim solely in order to allow a defendant an opportunity to defeat that claim, whether by extracting payment from the housing benefit authority or from any other source, is choosing not to apply the law in force at the date of the hearing on the basis that he considers it to be lacking in justice. This is simply not a proper exercise of judicial discretion. It is an interference with the statutory scheme which gives rights to both landlords and tenants. If the scheme gives rise to injustice it is for Parliament and not for the court to address that issue.’

Judges:

Platt J

Citations:

Unreported, 8 September 2003

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221438

Marsh Ltd v Cooper: 1969

Whether premises were let as a separate dwelling.

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 803

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins HL 11-Oct-2001
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy?
Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221452

Hayward v Marshall: 1952

Whether rooms were let as a separate dwelling.

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins HL 11-Oct-2001
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy?
Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221449

Fayner v Bilton: 1878

Citations:

[1878] 7 Ch Div 815

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – McGriel v Wake CA 1984
. .
Cited – English Churches Housing Group v Shine CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant was a secure tenant of English Churches Housing Group. He was unemployed and lived on benefits. He claimed damages against his landlord for breaches of the repairing covenants implied by section 11. The court considerd the appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Damages

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198679

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Hensley: CA 1 Nov 2007

The secure tenant was convicted of cultivating cannabis in the house. The council sought possession, and now appealed an order granting only possession suspended whilst the tenant complied with the terms of the tenancy agreement, seeking outright possession.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. A possesion order was not to be made unless it was reasonable. Though it was two years since any breach, the tenant was still subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, the effect of which would pass. The court below had not taken sufficient account of the effect of the tenant’s behaviour on his neighbours. Gage: LJ ‘the offence was a very serious one. The evidence of what the police officers found at the premises shows that the defendant was carrying on a substantial operation of cannabis cultivation. Whether or not the defendant was living at the premises all the time, and there is some evidence he was not, is immaterial. It is clear that a large proportion of the premises was devoted to this operation. Further, the photographs would seem to indicate that the installation of the hydroponics may have caused some damage to the premises. This was at least the defendant’s third offence for cultivating cannabis at these premises. He has, in addition, a conviction for supplying cannabis. These offences, coupled with the defendant’s attitude to them and drugs in general, demonstrate a complete disregard for the terms of his tenancy agreement and, in my view, give no cause for optimism about his future conduct. Whilst I accept that there is no evidence of further offending since late 2005, the seriousness of the offences and the pattern of the defendant’s offending are, in my judgment, a better guide to the future than the absence of offending since 2005. In my opinion, the district judge attached too much weight to the absence of evidence of breaches since 2005, and far too little to the offence and the defendant’s previous convictions. ‘

Judges:

Gage LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1425, [2008] HLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dicta Doubted – City Council of Bristol v Mousah CA 25-Feb-1997
The tenant had been found guilty of allowing the premises to be used for the consumption and supply of crack cocaine. The assistant recorder held that it was not reasonable to make an order for possession. The council appealed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Stonebridge Housing Action Trust v Gabbidon and Another ChD 21-Nov-2002
The landlord sought possession of a flat on the grounds that there were arrears of rent, and that one of the tenants had used it for the sale of drugs. It now appealed a suspension of the order, saying that the unlawful user meant that suspension . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Higgins CA 24-Nov-2005
The authority sought an immediate possession order against their council house tenant. Her 13 year old son had been made subject to an ASBO after atrocious and intimidating behaviour towards a neighbour. A possession order had been granted but then . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.264480

Omar v Birmingham City Council: CA 7 Jun 2007

The claimant said the authority had not discharged its duty to him in considering his application for housing. It had written to him saying ‘this is your one and final offer’, and that the council was satisfied that the accommodation was suitable for the needs of Mr Omar and his family and that it would be reasonable for him to accept it; and that, if he decided to refuse the offer without good reason to do so, the council would consider that it had discharged its duty to him under Part VII of the 1996 Act; and that accordingly no further offers of accommodation would be made. He said the notice did not state that the offer was final referring to the section.
Held: His appeal failed. Though the exact form of words had not been used it had been made quite clear that this was the final offer.
May LJ said that, although section 193(7A) was expressed in mandatory terms, a literal slavish repetition of the exact words of the subsection was not required. The explicit reference to a final offer in the local authority’s letter could only mean that it was an offer within Part VI and for that reason it might be possible to say that sub-section (7) was indeed complied with.

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 610, Times 12-Jun-2007, [2007] JLR 43

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 193(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham CA 2-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons.
Held: The tenant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.253689

F v Birmingham City Council: CA 2 Nov 2006

The applicant sought housing as a homeless person with her children. The authority found her in priority need, but intentionally homeless. Her appeal against the adverse review failed, and she appealed again. She had given up a council flat and had moved into premises which she found she could not afford and lost. She said she had expected her rent to be paid.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had been found not to have been told that her rent would be paid, but had been told that if she made the move, she risked being considered intentionally homeless: ‘her conduct may be characterised as wilful ignorance or shutting her eyes to the obvious, thus failing the good faith test.’

Judges:

May LJ, Gage LJ, Hallett LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1427, [2007] HLR 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996, The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/No 3204).

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Crawley Borough Council v Bliss CA 22-Feb-2000
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 . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Aw-Aden v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Dec-2005
When a council is considering whether an applicant for housing is a homeless person, the applicant’s appreciation of the prospects of future housing can be treated as ‘awareness of a relevant fact’ for the purposes of the sub-section, provided that . .
Cited – O’Connor and Another v Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 30-Mar-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte N’Dormadingar QBD 14-Oct-1997
The failure of the applicant to make proper preparations for a house move is a proper consideration when assessing intentional homelessness. . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Obeid QBD 16-Jul-1996
Loss of a house from ignorance of benefit rules was not deliberate homelessness. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.245820

Beltekian v Westminster City Council: CA 8 Dec 2004

The council had determined the applicant’s housing benefit. He requested a review. An oral hearing was arranged, at which he sought to raise a new point. He was not allowed to do so.
Held: The review procedure was limited to a review of the decision itself. If the claimant wanted to appeal the decision he had been able to do so, but there was no appeal from the review.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Clarke LJ, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1784, Times 15-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001, Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.221013

Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis: CA 9 Apr 2003

The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings.
Held: The transfer moved tenants from the secure tenancy regime to the assured tenancy regime, with different notices and procedures. The notices were not significantly different. The court laid out a procedure to be followed which would allow substitution of the new landlord.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 496, Times 17-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kelsey Housing Association Ltd v King and Another CA 8-Aug-1995
The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision to dispense with notice under the section. A notice to quit had been served and a summons for possession issued with an appendix containing details of the allegations of breach of the tenancy agreement . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Finn CA 2002
The court was concerned with the ‘secure’ tenancy regime and the proper approach to the 1985 Act. The court took a ‘purposive approach’ in considering whether to allow the making of an amendment to a conditional possession order on the basis of new . .
Mentioned – Mountain v Hastings CA 16-Apr-1993
The tenant disputed the effect of a notice to quit. Paragraph 3 of the form read: ‘The landlord intends to seek possession on grounds . . in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, which reads: Give the full text of each ground which is being relied on. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.181310

Barrs Residential and Leisure Ltd v Pleass Thomson and Co (Park Homes – Succession): UTLC 29 Apr 2020

PARK HOMES – SUCCESSION – Mobile Homes Act 1983, section 3 – Variation of will of deceased occupier – Effect on succession to mobile home and pitch agreement by deceased’s son who was not himself occupying mobile home

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 114 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650487

A, Regina (on the Application of) v Coventry City Council: Admn 22 Jan 2009

Judges:

Anthony Edward-Stuart QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 34 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark HL 20-May-2009
The House was asked whether when a child of 16 or 17 who was ejected from home and presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, it is open to that authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Housing

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.280136

Birmingham City Council v Aweys and others: CA 7 Feb 2008

If accommodation is not reasonable for a person to occupy, it is not suitable for him. Arden LJ said: ‘homelessness is a large social problem directly and substantially affecting the lives of many people in the UK, and those who depend on them, including young children. The causes are no doubt manifold: they include not only poverty but relationship breakdown and the shortage of suitable and affordable accommodation in the private sector.’

Judges:

Ward LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 48, [2008] 1 WLR 2305, [2008] 2 FCR 474, [2008] HLR 32, [2008] Fam Law 407, [2008] 1 FLR 1025

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Aweys and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council Admn 26-Jan-2007
The applicant complained that the respondent’s housing allocation policies were unlawful, giving priority to those who were homeless or in temporary accommodation over those it had been found to be in overcrowded conditions.
Held: The policy . .

Cited by:

Cited – Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council CA 17-Apr-2008
The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it . .
Cited – Muse v London Borough of Brent CA 19-Dec-2008
The court was asked whether the section 193 duty to provide housing was lost after the applicant had refused alternative temporary accommodation. The applicant had been granted temporary accommodation, but her family grew and it became too small. . .
Not preferred – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.264121

London Borough of Southwark v Dennett: CA 7 Nov 2007

The defendant tenant had been delayed for over five years by the claimant in buying his council house. He stopped paying rent in protest, and the council brought possession proceedings. He then paid his rent and continued in his counterclaim to require the lease. The parties differed as to whether a parking right was included. The council appealed against a finding of misfeasance in public office in having deliberately delayed the sale.
Held: The valuation had included the parking right as a major asset. However there had been insufficient evidence to establish misfeasance. There has to be a finding of subjective, not objective indifference.

Judges:

May LJ, Longmore LJ, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1091

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 153A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Guinan v Enfield London Borough Council CA 1996
The landlord council and tenant claiming his right to buy disputed the reasonableness of terms proposed by the council for inclusion in the lease. The tenant served a RTB6 notice and the landlord served a RTB7 Counter notice relying on the . .
Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – Sir William Jaffray and others v The Society of Lloyds CA 20-Jun-2007
The appellant sought to re-open a decision of the Court of Appeal saying that fresh evidence had emerged which he said demonstrated that Lloyd’s had misled the court at first instance. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Muuse v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant, a Dutch national, was detained pending deportation. He was arrested ‘for immigration’ after being given bail in other proceedings. It had been found that that detention was unlawful. He did not come within the criteria for deportation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Torts – Other

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.260274

Raglan Housing Association Ltd v Fairclough: CA 1 Nov 2007

The tenant appealed an order for possession. He had been convicted of making indecent images of children. The defendant had moved his tenancy from the property in which the offences had been convicted to a neighbouring property. The landlord said that offence had still been committed in the locality of the house.
Held: The tenant’s appeal was dismissed. The statute was not limited to offences connected only directly with the property at issue. It included for example those residing in or visiting the premises. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘the tenant can properly be held responsible for the way in which he has behaved in the locality both before he became a tenant and afterwards. To put it bluntly, why should a tenant who was the mystery burglar responsible for thefts from houses in the area before he obtained a tenancy not be at risk of eviction when his identity is discovered and conviction follows?’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, May LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1087, Times 28-Nov-2007, [2007] WLR (D) 285, [2008] HLR 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 G14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Schneiders and Sons Ltd v Abrahams 1925
The landlord claimed possession of a dwelling house let on a weekly tenancy, saying the tenant had been convicted of using the premises for an unlawful purpose. The tenant had been convicted of handling stolen goods by receiving them at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.260142

Rushton and Another v Worcester City Council: CA 22 May 2001

Application to correct mathematical errors in the main judgment.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mary Rushton, Michael Rushton v Worcester City Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The claimants had purchased the first tenant’s council property under the right to buy scheme. The council had failed to disclose facts about its condition which rendered it valueless, but now appealed against the award of damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201082

Brown v Myerson: CA 21 Jul 1998

The claimant let a house to the defendant under an assured shorthold tenancy. In breach of condition, the defendant operated her licensed conveyancer’s business from the premises. Under an associated arrangement land was let to the defendant for her horses. On a possession action, the defendant asserted that the letting was a business tenancy protected under the 1954 Act, and also claimed for improvements and counterclaimed for damages for nuisance caused by rats. The judge had found a surrender and regrant, but there had been no acquiescence in the business operation.
Held: The defendant had not made out any sufficient grounds of appeal, and leave to appeal was refused.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1253

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Housing Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144732

Regina v Housing Benefit Review Board for Swansea ex parte Littler Housing Benefit Review Board for St Edmundsbury ex parte Sandys: CA 15 Jul 1998

General counselling services which supported a dependent tenant was only eligible for re-imbursement under housing benefit if it related specifically to the fabric of the building in which the tenant lives.

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1214

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General Regulations) 1987 (1987 No 1971)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v St Edmundsbury Housing Benefit Review Board ex parte Sandys Admn 24-Jul-1997
General counselling services to support tenant is only eligible for re-imbursement under housing benefit if it is in place to preserve fabric of the building in which the tenant lives. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v St Edmundsbury Housing Benefit Review Board ex parte Sandys Admn 24-Jul-1997
General counselling services to support tenant is only eligible for re-imbursement under housing benefit if it is in place to preserve fabric of the building in which the tenant lives. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144693

Regina v Lord Mayor and Citizens of City of Westminster ex parte Ellioua: CA 2 Jul 1998

The applicant sought to be rehoused. On review it was decided that she was intentionally homeless. She asked the authority to review that decision (a re-review). The authority said it had no power so to do. She had a right to appeal on a point of law only.
Held: The relief claimed was based entirely on alleged errors of law. Those issues should have been canvassed in the County Court. The statutory remedy not having been properly exhausted, this application for judicial review was inappropriate and should be refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Robert Walker

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1142, (1998) 31 HLR 440

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, ex parte Nadia Saber QBD 1991
It is not uncommon, after a decision has been reached that an applicant for housing under Part III of the Act became intentionally homeless, for a request to be made to reconsider the decision in the light of additional material or argument. Such a . .
Appeal from – Regina v Ellioua Admn 19-Feb-1998
Application for leave to review was denied. The applicant sought to request the authority to review their initial review of their decision on his application for emergency housing. The authority had no such power, and its refusal could not be . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Ellioua Admn 19-Feb-1998
Application for leave to review was denied. The applicant sought to request the authority to review their initial review of their decision on his application for emergency housing. The authority had no such power, and its refusal could not be . .
Cited – C v London Borough of Lewisham CA 4-Jul-2003
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144621

London Borough of Brent v Sharma and Vyas: CA 1992

A tenancy of a flat was granted to Miss Vyas. She occupied it with Mr Sharma. They later married. She moved out and was given the tenancy of a council house elsewhere. She then wrote to Brent, the landlords, to say she was no longer sharing with Mr Sharma, that she had moved out and had no objection to the transfer of the flat into his name. Brent stopped charging rent to Miss Vyas, posting a notice to quit through the letter box of the flat requiring her to give up possession on 16 January 1989. The judge held that the notice was invalid as never having been properly served on Miss Vyas. She continued to live in Milton Keynes until September 1989. Mr Sharma continued to occupy the flat. Brent never transferred the tenancy to him and never treated him as a tenant. Brent took proceedings for possession against both Miss Vyas and Mr Sharma on 14 September 1989. The judge made an order for possession, taking the view that Miss Vyas’ notice of November 1988 was an unequivocal act by her and evincing an intention to surrender the tenancy, which he held had been accepted by Brent. The judge relied on the fact that Brent’s internal records showed that they no longer debited any rent to Miss Vyas. He therefore made the possession order. The defendants appealed, arguing that there was no evidence of any unequivocal act by Brent showing that it had accepted that there was no longer a continuing tenancy and that Brent’s service of the notice to quit in December 1988 showed that it regarded the tenancy as then still continuing.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Miss Vyas’ conduct in leaving the flat, moving to Milton Keynes and living there with her two children and sending her November 1988 notice to Brent amounted to unequivocal representations that she was treating her tenancy of the flat as at an end. Lord Justice Scott: ‘Of course, unilateral conduct by one of the parties to a tenancy cannot by itself bring to an end the tenancy. Surrender by operation of law requires unequivocal conduct by both landlord and tenant. The landlord council, it seems, was not entirely clear as to the legal effect of the conduct of Miss Vyas. So the council did three things. On December 19, 1988, it ceased to charge rent as from December 12, 1988; thereafter no rent was charged to Miss Vyas in respect of the tenancy at 33, Donovan Court. Second, the council served a document, purporting to be a notice to quit, terminating the tenancy as at the end of January 1989; and, third, by any number of internal memoranda, the council showed that it regarded Miss Vyas’s tenancy of 33, Donovan Court as having come to an end. I refer, in particular, to the comments describing the occupation of Mr Sharma, who had been living with Miss Vyas at 33, Donovan Court, as in ‘unlawful occupation’.
The council’s conduct in December 1988 may, correctly viewed, have been equivocal. But, in my judgment, by February 1989 at the latest the council’s conduct had become entirely unequivocal. If both tenant and landlord are unequivocally treating a tenancy as at an end, the law has no business to insist on its continuance.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott

Citations:

(1992) 25 HLR 257

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sanctuary Housing Association v Campbell CA 18-Mar-1999
The claimant had granted a secure weekly tenancy of a maisonette to Mrs Campbell, which she occupied with her husband and children. Mrs Campbell then left the maisonette, leaving the husband in occupation. The husband made a proposal to the claimant . .
Cited – Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie CA 10-Oct-2003
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Cited – Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan and Others CA 27-Feb-2009
The parties disputed whether the landlord had accepted the surrender of a lease. The tenant had handed in the keys. The landlord claimed rent for the subsequent period. The court had found surrender by operation of law, the landlord taking several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.235947

Regina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 9 Jul 2003

Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was provided accommodation by NASS, but was unhappy with it and sought assistance direct from the respondent council. Which was responsible? The council argued that the 1948 Act applied only to those whose disability directly affected there housing needs.
Held: The argument failed in the light of the authorities. The council had responsibility.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Simon Brown Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 836, Times 23-Jul-2003, [2004] BLGR 35, [2004] LGR 35, [2004] HLR 5, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 376

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Asssistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Mani) v Lambeth London Borough Council, Regina (Tasci) v Enfield London Borough Council, Regina (J) v Same Admn 18-Apr-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers, but also had disabilities, and sought housing assistance from the local authorities. The authorities replied that they had no duty to provide housing because of the Immigration Act.
Held: The 1948 Act . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte M 1997
. .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .

Cited by:

Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Housing

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.184338

Lismane v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 29 Jun 1998

Where an asylum seeker had housing which was sufficiently inadequate to render her homeless for the purposes of the section, she was not disallowed from receiving such assistance by the operation of the other section regarding asylum seekers

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1111

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 175(1) 186(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144590

Sheffield City Council v Jackson and others: CA 17 Jun 1998

Ability of right to buy owners to challenge the reasonableness of covenants to pay service charges was challengeable before completions in county court, but after completion only by application to the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998, Times 22-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 881, [1998] 1 WLR 1591, (1999) 31 HLR 331, [1998] 3 All ER 260

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 125 127 128 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant had exercised the right to buy his flat from the defendant. After the lease had been executed he sought to assert that the price should have been further reduced to allow for rent disregarded by the defendant because it been covered by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.89204

JL, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 30 Apr 2013

The defendant appealed against rejection of her claim for judicial review of an order for possession of her house, saying that it had failed to address issues of mandatory relevance and was disproportionate.

Judges:

Arden DBE, Sullivan, Briggs LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 449

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.478063

Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd v Meredith and others: CA 4 Apr 2003

The local authority had let a row of houses to the claimant who then sublet the individual houses to the defendant tenants. The authority obtained possession under the head lease for redevelopment, but the tenants resisted giving possession, saying that at the time the possession proceedings had started, the claimant, its own lease having been terminated, no longer had any sufficient interest to found a claim for possession.
Held: The terms of the lease anticipated that as the head tenant’s lease was terminated it would itself recover possession from the sub tenants, and there existed therefore an implied licence in the head tenants to occupy the land sufficiently to exclude and seek possession from the defendants.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Mr Justice Richards Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 495, Times 21-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Tugwell CA 4-Apr-2000
A company was granted a licence to enter on land, for surveys and technical investigations, with a view eventually to its purchase. The land was occupied by protesters, and the company sought an injunction to exclude them. It was held that the . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton; Longmire; Stoddard; Maile and Persons Unknown CA 4-Mar-1999
The claimant wished to construct a new runway on its own land, and it was necessary to carry out works, namely, that trees on nearby land should be lopped or felled so that they would not constitute an obstruction to the flight path. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.180584

Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira: CA 20 May 1998

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 to what Mann J said in Di Domenico.) The Council must consider whether Mr Pereira is a person who is vulnerable as a result of mental illness or handicap or for other special reason. Thus, the Council must ask itself whether Mr Pereira is, when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects. The application of this test must not be confused with the question whether or not the Applicant is at the material time homeless. If he is not homeless, the question whether he is in priority need becomes academic. The question under paragraph (c) can only arise if (or on the assumption that) he is at the material time homeless. A particular inability of a person suffering from some handicap coming within paragraph (c) to obtain housing for himself can be an aspect of his inability as a homeless person to fend for himself. Such an individual may suffer from some mental or physical handicap which makes him unable to obtain housing unaided and thus makes him unable to cope with homelessness in a way which does not apply to the ordinary homeless person. But it is still necessary, as is illustrated by the decided cases, to take into account and assess whether in all the circumstances the applicant’s inability to cope comes within paragraph (c). It must appear that his inability to fend for himself whilst homeless will result in injury or detriment to him which would not be suffered by an ordinary homeless person who was able to cope. The assessment is a composite one but there must be this risk of injury or detriment. If there is not this risk, the person will not be vulnerable. In so far as the judgments of Hodgson J in Sangeramano and Webster J in Carroll might be thought to suggest something different, those dicta should not be followed.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1998] NPC 94, [1998] EWCA Civ 863, [1998] 31 HLR 317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira Admn 15-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Cited – O’Rourke v Mayor etc of the London Borough of Camden HL 12-Jun-1997
The claimant had been released from prison and sought to be housed as a homeless person. He said that his imprisonment brought him within the category of having special need. He also claimed damages for the breach.
Held: The Act was intended . .
Cited – ex parte Banbury 1987
. .
Cited – ex parte Carroll 1988
The applicant for housing was said to have suffered ‘a major and irreversible handicap’ as a result of a childhood injury but who also was in the habit of drinking six or seven pints of beer a day.
Held: The court accepted the submission ‘that . .
Cited – Regina v Waveney City Council, ex parte Bowers CA 25-May-1982
The applicant was an alcoholic and had in 1980 been hit by a motor vehicle and suffered a severe head injury. He sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to house him.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘The question we have to consider . .
Cited – ex parte Di Dominico 1989
The applicant was an epileptic who required careful medical supervision, but the local authority did not regard her as vulnerable for housing purposes.
Held: Review was declined. The matter was one for the authority exercising its discretion. . .
Cited – ex parte Sangeramano 1985
When consideriung whether an applicant for housing was vulnerable, ‘The vulnerability to be considered is vulnerability loosely in housing terms or in the context of housing.’ . .
Cited – Ortiz v City of Westminster CA 1994
The applicant was a twenty four year old woman with a history of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was in fact suitable hostel accommodation available which had been offered to the applicant at the relevant time and it was hard to see why she . .
Cited – Wilson v Nithsdale District Council 1992
An eighteen year old girl had been sexually assaulted, was unable to return home, had been expelled from a hostel for suspected theft and was said to be at risk of further sexual assault if not provided with suitable accommodation. She sought . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira Admn 15-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
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 . .
Cited – Hall v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 17-Dec-2004
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been . .
Cited – London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of . .
Cited – Simms v London Borough of Islington CA 16-Oct-2008
The applicant, a recovering drug addict sought assistance as a homeless person in priority need. He said that he was subject to a risk of relapse.
Held: The council had correctly applied the tests set out in Pereira and Osmani. They had been . .
Cited – Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 1-Nov-1999
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could . .
Cited – Johnson v Solihull CA 6-Jun-2013
. .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
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 . .
Cited – Hotak v London Borough of Southwark CA 15-May-2013
The court was asked whether, when assessing an applicant’s ‘priority need for accommodation’ under section 189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996 (that is, whether the applicant is ‘vulnerable’ by reason of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144342

Gray and others v Taylor: CA 2 Apr 1998

A right of occupation given by an almshouse under a charitable trust was an occupation under a licence without right of possession, not an assured tenancy. The plaintiff’s conditions of occupancy stated: ‘Residents are licensees and pay a contribution towards the cost of providing accommodation at the Court: residents are not tenants and do not pay rent.’
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed and she did not have an assured tenancy. There had been no intention to create a tenancy: ‘A person who is selected as an almsperson becomes a beneficiary under the trusts of the charity and enjoys the privilege of occupation of rooms in the almshouses as a beneficiary. It is, in my judgment, wholly immaterial that, in this case, the appellant pays a weekly sum towards the cost of maintaining the almshouses and the essential services therein. ‘ and ‘the weekly contribution paid by the almsperson goes towards the discharge of costs falling on the trustees, thereby liberating income of the charity for other purposes, including the maintenance of a reserve fund and the improvement and extension of the almshouses. The weekly charge is not rent payable under a tenancy. Indeed, it is historically the case that, until comparatively recently, almspersons were not required to pay any weekly sum. The introduction of a weekly sum came with the introduction of housing benefit, to which almspersons would normally be entitled; payment of a weekly sum not exceeding the housing benefit would not result in any net loss to the almsperson and in effect the housing benefit would be available to the charity. ‘

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir John Vinelott

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 24-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 603, [1998] L and TR 50, [1998] 4 All ER 17, , [1998] 1 WLR 1093

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Allan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
Cited – Errington v Errington and Woods CA 19-Dec-1951
There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.80991

Johnson and Others v Old: CA 23 Apr 2013

The court was asked whether (as the appellant contends) a payment made at the commencement of the tenancy, pursuant to a requirement in the tenancy agreement that ‘The first six months rent are to be paid in advance’, must be treated as a ‘tenancy deposit’ for the purposes of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.

Judges:

Arden, Jackson LJJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 212(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472897

London Borough of Croydon v Axford: CA 22 Feb 2013

The tenant sought leave to appeal against a possession order granted against him. He had been debared from giving evidence after repeated failures to comply with directions. He said he was dyslexic.
Held: The judge had found dishonesty in the tenant’s application, and had dealt with the matter correctly. Leave refused.

Judges:

Lewison LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 215

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472884

Dibbs v Campbell: 1988

Citations:

(1988) 20 HLR 374

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 34(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Truro Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd v Foley CA 22-Oct-2008
The tenant appealed against a decision that a deed he had entered into with the claimant did not operate to give him the status of a protected or statutory tenancy.
Held: The tenant had had a full Rent Act tenancy. The Board claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.296309

Contour Homes Ltd v Rowen: CA 26 Jun 2007

The landlord appealed a finding that in raising the rent of the tenant’s property, he should have followed the section 13 procedure. He said that the agreement contained its own provisions agreed with the tenant.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The section excludes a tenancy where provision is made for an increase in rent, and this exclusion applies not simply as the judge thought to cases where the amount of the increase in the rent is set by the tenancy agreement, but also in cases where the tenancy agreement merely provides machinery for increasing the rent.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Arden LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jul-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 842, [2007] 1 WLR 2982, [2008] HLR 9, (2007) 151 SJLB 895, [2007] L and TR 27

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.259137

Council of City of Manchester v Lawler and Another: CA 17 Mar 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 470, (1999) 31 HLR 119

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Metropolitan Housing Trust v Hadjazi CA 1-Jul-2010
The Trust appealed against refusal of an order for possession against its periodic assured tenant. The grounds were 14 (nuisance or annoyance), and 14A (domestic violence). The judge had found that the violence complained of occurred only after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143948

Birmingham City Council v Beech and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2013

The tenant, the claimant’s mother had surrendered the tenancy before her death. The claimant now said that she should have been allowed to succeed to the tenancy and that the possession order was disproportionate.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 518 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471773

Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum Support Adjudicator and others: Admn 16 May 2006

The Asylum Support adjudicators had allowed appeals by the asylum failed seekers, and had awarded them support. The Secretary of State now appealed. The failed asylum seekers had been unable to leave the country and having been refused support were destitute.
Held: The decisions had been wrong. The decision fell to be made in stages. First, was he but no longer, an asylum seeker, and his claim for asylum was rejected. Secondly, was he destitute? Third, did he meet any of the conditions under regulation 3(2). Reg 3(2)(b) asked that the applicant be unable to leave the country ‘by reason of a physical impediment to travel or for some other medical reason’, and the limb is sub-divided by reference to the alternatives of ‘a physical impediment to travel’, or ‘some other medical reason’. The decision maker must take a two stage approach, asking first whether he was unable to leave, and then as to the reason. The words were to be given their ordinary meaning. ‘Unable’ means the same as ‘not able’ but is different from ‘impossible’: ‘To substitute an absolute test of impossibility in the literal sense of that word would be to put it too high. ‘

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1248 (Admin), Times 11-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/930) 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Moore v Electoral Registration Officer for Borders ScSf 1980
(Sheriff Court of Lothian and Borders) The court considered the construction of the words ‘unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station’, so as to qualify somebody to apply for a postal vote under the 1949 Act. This led to . .
Cited – Leeder v The Mayor, etc, of the Town of Ballarat East 1908
(Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia) The court considered the requirement of giving notice within a certain period of time to the municipality as a precondition of a person recovering damages from the municipality as a result of the state of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242301

Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council: CA 15 Jul 2004

A homeless gypsy caravan dweller applied for housing. The authority offered temporary bed and breakfast accomodation. She complained that she had an aversion to living in bricks and mortar.
Held: The authority had discharged its function. The duty of the authority was to secure the availability of suitable accommodation within a reasonable period of time, the reasonableness of the period depending on the circumstances of each case and on what accommodation was available.
Auld LJ said that the requirement to accord respect to the applicant’s gypsy culture: ‘requires the authority carefully to examine a gypsy’s claim for such special consideration and, if satisfied that it is genuine, whether in all the circumstances of the case, it should attempt to meet it, and, if so, how. Those circumstances should, of course, include the likely duration of occupation in respect of which an offer is to be made. However, if despite such examination and, where appropriate, a genuine consideration of ways and means of meeting the gypsy’s claim, an authority fails to provide a caravan site or pitch, it would only amount to a breach of its statutory duty or violate Article 8 if it produced an offer falling below the Wednesbury minimum line.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Holman The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 925, Times 21-Jul-2004, [2005] LGR 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina (Price) v Carmarthenshire County Council 2003
A gypsy applied for housing with the respondent authority, but did not wish to live in a house. They suggested that if the claimants had an aversion to accommodation in bricks and mortar then the offer of such accommodation could not amount to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lee v Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council CA 16-Jul-2008
The applicant, a gypsy had been living for some years on an illegal site with her children. The council closed the site down and she sought assistance as a homeless person. The council accepted her priority need, but she refused the property offered . .
Preferred – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.198841

York and Another v Casey and Another: CA 16 Feb 1998

The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date preceded the commencement date and was plainly a repetition of the date of the notice. But the real question was whether the termination date was sufficiently clear. There was other information provided as to that date. The apppeal was allowed, and the notice was effective. The objective test in Mannai also applied to the validity of a section 20 notice. A notice containing an error, such as a wrong date, may nevertheless be a valid notice if, ‘taking into account the relevant contextual scene’, the notice is quite clear to a reasonable person reading it, so that he would not be misled by it or left in any reasonable doubt as to its effect: ‘Accordingly,what the court must do is to see whether the error in the notice was obvious or evident and second, whether, notwithstanding that error, the notice read in its context is sufficiently clear to leave a reasonable recipient in no reasonable doubt as to the terms of the notice.’ (Peter Gibson LJ)

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

[1998] 2 EGLR 25, [1998] EWCA Civ 250

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Carradine Properties Ltd v Aslam ChD 1976
Under a break clause in a lease, the relevant date upon which a notice given by either party under the clause might take effect was a date in September 1975, but the landlord’s notice in September 1974 specified a date in 1973. The date in 1973, had . .
Cited – Delta Vale Properties Ltd v Mills CA 1990
A contract for the sale of land provided that, upon service of a notice to complete, the transaction should ‘be completed within 15 working days of service and in respect of such period time shall be of the essence’. The notices however substituted . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Yamaha-Kemble Music (UK) Ltd v ARC Properties Ltd ChD 1990
The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff tenants purportedly under the section. The defendant had been the landlord but shortly before serving the notice the defendant had assigned its interest in the property in question to its parent company . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143728

Laimond Properties Limited v Al-Shakarchi: CA 10 Feb 1998

If ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ was offered in exchange for a protected tenancy, the court need look only for some security for the tenant, not that he should receive equal protection. Where the landlord persuades the Rent Act protected tenants to surrender their old tenancy before taking a new tenancy, the lessees would not have been Rent Act tenants ‘immediately before the tenancy was granted’, but ‘Sub-paragraph (b) of section 34(1) is clearly designed to shield the tenant who had security of tenure under the 1977 Act and who has been persuaded by his landlord to enter into a new tenancy after January 15, 1989 so as to prevent him from losing the 1977 Act protection. It is designed to defeat an argument that the tenant has lost his 1977 Act protection because he has voluntarily surrendered the tenancy entered into prior to January 15, 1989 which attracted the provisions of the 1977 Act in exchange for a new tenancy which, being post January 15, 1989, did not qualify for that security. Section 34(1)(b) has in my opinion no application in a case such as the present where the landlord has gone to the court and obtained an order for possession.’
. . And ‘I can see no reason why section 34(1)(b) ought to be read subject to the suggested limitation; a view apparently shared by the judge in the case of Goringe v Twinsactra Ltd decided on April 20 1994, reported in the Legal Action Group Bulletin for June 1994 at 11.’

Judges:

Roche LJ Sir Brian Neill

Citations:

Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 23-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 197, (1998) 30 HLR 1099

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretarial and Nominee Co Ltd v Thomas and others CA 29-Jul-2005
The court was asked about transitional arrangements for Rent Act tenants after the 1988 Act: ‘If A, a Rent Act tenant, takes a new tenancy agreement after the commencement of the 1988 Act jointly with B, does B thereafter partake in the ongoing . .
See Also – Laimond Properties Limited and Christina Raeuchle CA 18-Aug-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
See Also – Laimond Properties Ltd v Raeuchle CA 24-Jan-2000
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 . .
Applied – Arogol Company Ltd v Rajah CA 21-Mar-2001
Defendant’s appeal from an order granting the claimant a possession order in respect of a ground floor flat. The basic question in the proceedings was whether the defendant had a tenancy protected under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143675

West Kent Housing Association Limited v Davies: CA 4 Feb 1998

The court should recognise the seriousness of the case where the Housing Association was doing its best to improve the quality of life for those living on a housing estate, when its efforts included obtaining witnesses as to the tenant’s behaviour who were prepared to give evidence despite the possibility of intimidation.

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 151, (1998) 31 HLR 415

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moat Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris and Another CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant family was served without notice with an anti-social behaviour order ordering them to leave their home immediately, and making other very substantial restrictions. The evidence in large part related to other people entirely.
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu CA 23-Mar-2006
The authority complained that during the course of the trial, the judge had repeatedly intervened during oral evidence.
Held: A judge must be careful not to repeatedly intervene during oral evidence as opposed to counsel making submissions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143629

McMahon v Watford Borough Council: CA 8 Apr 2020

These two appeals raise the question of the interaction between a determination whether an applicant for assistance under the homelessness legislation is ‘vulnerable’ and compliance with the public sector equality duty.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 497

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.649933

Stanbury v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth: CA 5 Dec 1997

The claimant had succeeded in his claim for damages against the council following their failure to comply with their obligations of repair under the 1985 Act. The council appealed an award of pounds 1,500 for chattels damaged by the damp.
Held: ‘I, for my part, would think it perfectly absurd in a case like this for one single further penny piece of public funds to be expended on its determination.’

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2917

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Damages

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143316

Burton v Camden London Borough Council: CA 15 Jan 1998

A deed of release executed by one joint tenant in favour of the other did not bind the landlord. Save that in a periodic tenancy the old tenant would be released on the next renewal.

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-1998, Gazette 28-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.78770

Ibrahim v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 30 Jan 2013

The court was asked how to deal with a plainly deficient homelessness decision when the deficiency has had no adverse consequences for the applicant?

Judges:

Mummery, Etherton, LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 20

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470665