Category: Housing

Osmani v London Borough of Camden: CA 16 Dec 2004

Auld LJ set out the test to be applied by an authority when deciding whether the applicant was vulnerable for the purposes of deciding whether to give priority housing assistance. The courts had recognised the difficult, involved nature of the decision-making process, particularly in the context of decisions on vulnerability and priority need. Auld LJ said: ‘As I have said, the appeal lies only on a point of law, and, within the Wednesbury type formulation given by Lord Bingham, matters of fact, discretion and judgment on such an issue are essentially matters for the local housing authority. Given the nature of the statutory scheme, which requires authorities administering it to determine on a case by case basis quite complex questions involving the weighing of policy issues and identification of priorities concerning the interests of others as well as those of any individual applicant, courts should tread warily before interfering.’ The main focus of attention on a second appeal such as this should be on the decision of the council rather than that of the county court judge on appeal from it.’
Auld LJ continued to discuss the Pereira case: Pereira establishes that a person is vulnerable for the purpose if he has such a lesser ability than that of a hypothetically ‘ordinary homeless person’ to fend for himself that he would suffer greater harm from homelessness than would such a person. One has only to attempt to apply the Pereira test to any particular case by asking the question whether the applicant would, by reason of whatever condition or circumstances assail him, suffer greater harm from homelessness than an ‘ordinary homeless person’, to see what a necessarily imprecise exercise of comparison it imposes on a local housing authority. Given that each authority is charged with local application of a national scheme of priorities put against its own burden of homeless persons and finite resources, such decisions are often likely to be highly judgmental. In the context of balancing the priorities of such persons a local housing authority is likely to be better placed in most instances for making such a judgment.’

Judges:

Auld, May, Judge LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1706, (2005) HLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
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 – Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society CA 4-Dec-2007
The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220351

Griffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: Admn 29 Oct 2004

The applicant had sought emergency housing with her husband, but refused accomodation on a particuar estate for her safety. She had then been evicted form the temporary housing supplied on the application. After a series of temporary arrangements she applied again. Her application was accepted but the previous offer and refusal were said to remain in effect.
Held: The decision in Fahia was to be preferred to that in Campisi, with the result that the authority need reconsider only if the claimant could establish that she was now in a different position. No material change had been shown, and the appeal was rejected.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2463 (Admin), Times 03-Jan-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 184

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Delahaye v Oswestry Borough Council 29-Jul-1980
The applicant had made more than one application for emergency housing and temporary accomodation pending the result of her application.
Held: It could not have been the intention of Parliament that a similar statute should be used by someone, . .
Cited – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark ex parte Campisi CA 9-Jul-1998
The claimant had made more than one application for emergency housing.
Held: ‘Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant’s claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and . .
Cited – Regina (Fatima Jeylani) v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2002
A declaration was granted requiring the local authority to consider the further homelessness application after the authority had followed the approach in Campisi and in consequence, it had refused to consider a further homelessness application of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Harouki v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 17-Oct-2007
The applicant sought housing as a homeles person. Her present accommodation for herself, her husband and five children was so overcrowded that continued occupation was a criminal offence. She appealed a finding that it was reasonable to continue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218873

Moore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee: CA 17 Oct 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 4-May-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of ‘once an assured tenancy, always an assured . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218446

Brighton and Hove City Council v Gill: CA 9 Aug 2001

Application for leave to appeal against tenant’s possession order – arrears of rent.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Brighton and Hove City Council v Gill CA 13-Jun-2001
Application for leave to appeal adjourned. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218359

Minsende v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 15 Jul 2002

The curt was asked as to, under the homelessness legislation, the effect of a fire rendering the premises uninhabitable, in no way occasioned by the occupants, upon imminent likely intentional homelessness through a long period of non-payment of rent.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1066

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217448

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 should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
Held: The Mousah case did establish that possession should be granted, but it had not decided whether a stay could be granted. Lloyd J. did ‘not accept that the drug incidents were conclusive factors which required [the judge] to reject the tenant’s application whatever might be the other relevant circumstances.’ It was necessary to examine with care the facts of the individual case. The offending tenant had left, and the judge was not compelled to make the order immediate. The judge had correctly addressed the three elements of the existence of grounds, the reasonableness of the order, and whether his discretion to suspend should be exercised. His decision was not to be interfered with.
Lloyd J said: ‘albeit that the observations of the Court of Appeal in City of Bristol v. Mousah are cogent, they do not by themselves compel the conclusion that when the court is addressing the question [‘as to whether it should exercise its wide discretion under s.85 of the 1985 Act to suspend a possession order or to stay execution’] it can come to only one possible answer in a case where incidents [of the kind in the present case] – which are to some extent comparable with those that were issues in the Mousah case – have been proved’.

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-2002

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.178433

Sheffield City Council v Hopkins: CA 19 Jun 2001

A possession order was granted against a secure tenant by the court for arrears of rent. The tenant then applied to suspend the order, and the landlord opposed that application wishing to put before the court additional allegations.
Held: Provided the tenant had been served with satisfactory notice of the matters upon which the landlord wished to rely, the court could hear and allow for such elements, particularly where they related to actions of the tenant after the date of the possession order.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

Gazette 05-Jul-2001, Times 23-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1023, [2002] HLR 12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sheffield City Council v Hopkins CA 28-Mar-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218267

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 succeeded.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 454, [2002] HLR 21, (2001) 82 P and CR DG7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 34(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Goringe v Twinsectra Ltd 20-Apr-1994
Section 34(1)(b) of the 1977 Act should to be read subject to a limitation that it applies that a new tenancy must be a tenancy of the same premises as the old. . .
Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218039

London Fire and Civil Defence Authority v Ahktar: CA 14 Feb 2001

The claimant landlord sought possession after long years of non-payment of rent. The secure tenant said that the landlord had entirely failed in its repairing obligations, and that the sums of rent had been expended on those repairs.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 295

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217999

Haysport Properties Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Rent Officer of West Sussex Registration Area: CA 31 Jan 2001

Challenge to rent for regulated tenany.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 237, [2001] L and TR 37, [2001] 21 EG 168, [2001] 2 EGLR 63, [2001] 6 EGCS 163, (2001) 33 HLR 71

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 67(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217934

Goodman v Evely and Another: CA 23 Jan 2001

The Court was asked whether a tenancy of a bungalow was a shorthold tenancy. It provided for an initial one year, and therefater from month to month. The tenant argued that it was not a tenancy for a fixed term.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. ‘ it is clear that this tenancy is not a periodic tenancy, pure and simple, because the automatic continuance at the end of the year is not for the same period, that is to say, continuation from year to year. It follows that it does not come within the exclusion to section 45(1). It follows that not being a periodic tenancy pure and simple, within the terms of the definition it is a fixed tenancy. That this is the intention of the legislature appears to me to be confirmed by the fact that section 20(1)(a) would be tautologous if the tenancy must be confined to a single fixed term for in that event it would have been sufficient to require ‘a fixed term tenancy granted for not less than six months’ thereby omitting from the definition the words ‘for a term certain of’.’

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 104, [2002] HLR 53, [2001] NPC 43, [2001] L and TR 31

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217931

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 authority beyond those in section 23(1), or at least avoids any unclarity in the important area of making byelaws. In particular, section 7(1) of the 1975 Act extends to the regulation of parking on any land held for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act 1985.’ The council’s appeal succeeded. The scheme was lawful.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Moses J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 582

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 23(1), Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave – 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 . .
Appealed to – Akumah v London Borough of Hackney HL 3-Mar-2005
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 . .

Cited by:

Full Appeal – 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 . .
Appeal from – Akumah v London Borough of Hackney HL 3-Mar-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217011

Stewart v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 26 Apr 2002

The local authority said that the claimant, having been sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment for drugs offences, had made himself intentionally homeless within the section. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for non-payment of rent. He had arranged with his sister that the rent should continue to be paid while he was in prison, but she failed to implement the arrangement. His application was rejected on the basis that he was intentionally homeless.
Held: The causal chain connecting his deliberate conduct in committing the offence to his homelessness on release from prison had not been broken. This might have been different if the arrangement had been implemented for a time but had then broken down.

Judges:

Gibson LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, longmore LJ

Citations:

Gazette 23-May-2002, Times 28-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 753, [2002] HLR 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 190 191

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hounslow ex parte R Admn 19-Feb-1997
The Applicant was 65 years old, with a history of criminal offences including serious sexual assaults on children. On release from prison, he presented himself as homeless. After his imprisonment, he had realised that he would be unable to keep up . .
Cited – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217106

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another: CA 16 Jan 2002

Judges:

Judge, Latham, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 279

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 9(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Appeal from – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216738

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Kubicek: QBD 23 Nov 2012

This appeal raises an issue as to when, if ever, it is permissible for a county court hearing an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 on ‘any point of law’ arising from a review decision made by a local housing authority in a homelessness case to receive evidence on and decide a question of fact relevant to the review decision.

Judges:

Mr Justice Leggatt

Citations:

[2012] EWCA 3292 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.466276

Gallagher v Castle Vale Action Trust Ltd: CA 23 Feb 2001

The court emphasised the need not merely to identify the relevant factors that weigh in each direction when considering whether to make an order for possession in a nuisance case, but to explain clearly why it is or is not proportionate to interfere with a Convention right in order to address a pressing social need.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

(2001) 33 HLR 72, [2001] EWCA Civ 944

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217984

Battlespring Ltd v Gates: CA 1983

The tenant had occupied the house for 35 years. She resisted an application by her landlord to rehouse her. She had brought up her family there and did want to leave.
Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed. The landlord’s interest which was purely financial had to be balanced against the wishes of the elderly lady tenant. The judge had made proper allowance for both interests and his decision was not to be disturbed. ‘Reasonableness’ is regarded as a matter for the trial judge and, in the context of secure tenancies, reasonable means having regard to both the interest of the parties and to the interest of the public.

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

[1983] EGLR 103, [1983] EG 355, (1984) 11 HLR 6

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Cumming v Danson CA 1942
The court considered what amounted to reasonable alternative accomodation.
Held: it was the judge’s duty to take into account all relevant circumstances as they exist at the date of the hearing. There is a fundamental difference in the Rent . .
Applied – Cresswell v Hodgson CA 1951
The landlord sought possession. The tenant had a controlled tenancy. L offered the tenant another house (one he had built) as alternative accommodation. The rent was higher. The landlord was under pressure from his bank and wanted capital to pay off . .

Cited by:

Cited – Whitehouse v Lee CA 14-May-2009
The tenant appealed against an order requiring her to give up possession of her flat, held under the 1977 Act, saying that the court should not have found it reasonable to make an order after finding alternative accommodation suitable.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.221512

Neale v Del Soto: CA 1945

A letting of two of a number of rooms in a property together with joint use with the landlord of the kitchen, bathroom, lavatory and conservatory was not a letting of the two rooms as a separate dwelling, but a sharing of the property. The letting was not secure.

Citations:

[1945] KB 144, [1945] 1 All ER 191

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 . .
Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.221446

South Hams District Council v Shough and Others: CA 2 Dec 1992

There was a possible duty on a council not to evict trespassers claiming to be gypsies. If the authority had a duty to house the applicants, but failed to provide accommodation in accordance with that duty, it could be wrong to make an order supporting an attempt to evict them. The duty to house was a higher duty than the duty to recover possession of land.

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Staughton LJ

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jan-1993, Times 08-Dec-1992

Statutes:

Caravan Sites Act 1968 6(1) 7(1), Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Avon District Council v Buscott 1988
The grounds on which any application for judicial review are to be based may not be raised as a defence in the civil proceedings unless a private law right has been infringed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.89411

Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another: Admn 7 Oct 2004

The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter had been settled the court was invited to pursue the decision.
Held: The Act was intended to fulfil the purpose of promoting family life, and therefore the human rights of the claimant were engaged under Art 14, and ‘the Council’s refusal to treat the Claimant as having a priority need for accommodation in circumstances where a parent with a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control would have been treated as having a priority need for accommodation amounted to an infringement of her right under Art. 14 to enjoy her right to respect for her family life under Art. 8 without discrimination.’ A declaration of incompatibility was made.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin), Times 20-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 865, [2005] 1 All ER 351, [2004] UKHRR 1126, [2004] HRLR 43, [2005] 1 FLR 429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 185(4)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Regina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Cited – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .
Distinguished – Gaygusuz v Austria ECHR 16-Sep-1996
The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Cited – Gay v Sheeran, London Borough of Enfield CA 18-Jun-1999
The ability for a court to order the transfer of a secure tenancy between partners under the Act depended upon the court first making an occupation order in favour of the party from whom the tenancy was to be transferred, but the order could be made . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
Appeal from – Westminster City Council and Another v Morris; Regina (Badu) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 14-Oct-2005
The claimant sought housing assistance. She had a child. She was subject to immigration control. She complained that when considering her application, the Act required the authority to disregard her responsibiltes to her children.
Held: The . .
Cited – Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215932

Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu: ChD 18 Jul 2002

The landlord appealed a finding of the county court that a notice of assured shorthold tenancy needed to be served on the tenant personally. Here the notice had been served on the proposed tenant’s solicitors.
Held: Though Galinski applied to a different procedure the analogy was appropriate. Service on the tenant’s solicitors was adequate. Proceedings had been commenced anticipating no dispute as to fact. Once it became clear that there was such a dispute, the court should have expressly stated that it was to be treated as if it had never been allocated to fast track, and that it should accordingly proceed as a multi-track case, and an appeal would be to the High Court and not to the Court of Appeal.

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20, Civil Procedure Rules Part 8, Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 No 1071) 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Galinski v McHugh 5-Oct-1988
A landlord’s notice under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been served on the tenant’s solicitors, who had confirmed that they had authority to accept service. Later the tenant challenged the validity of the service.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.174753

Queensway Housing Association Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Committee; Laira Properties Ltd v Same; Cherry Tree Investments v Similar Etc: QBD 11 Dec 1998

When choosing areas for assessment of amenity values and scarcity values an area in which a tenant could reasonably expect to choose from ignoring the amenity area, but not a really large area such as the South East of England.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1998, Gazette 03-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 70(1) 70(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.85093

Barrow and Amey v Kazim and Others: CA 31 Oct 2018

The court was asked: ‘whether a notice that the respondents, who own the relevant premises, served on the appellants, who are assured shorthold tenants, satisfied the requirements of section 21(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. The respondents maintain that it did. The appellants dispute that on the basis that the respondents were not at the date of the notice ‘the landlord’ within the meaning of section 21(1)(b).’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2414

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.628677

McCoy and Co v Clark: CA 1984

Citations:

(1984) 13 HLR 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.266861

Speedwell Estates Ltd and Another v Dalziel and others: CA 31 Jul 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201292

Greenwich London Borough Council v Powell: HL 1989

A person could be a gypsy for the purpose of section 16 of the 1968 Act if he led a nomadic way of life only seasonally.

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1989] 1 AC 995

Statutes:

Caravan Sites Act 1968 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Cited – Regina v South Hams District Council, ex parte Gibb and Another, Regina v Gloucester Cc, ex parte Davies CA 8-Jun-1994
The meaning of ‘Gypsy’ under the Act requires some element of travelling, and should include that this was associated with the means of earning a living. In applying the statutory definition of gypsies the actual words used are to be used, taking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.184234

Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand and Others: CA 20 Dec 2006

The defendant squatters sought leave to appeal an order for immediate possession.
Held: (As citeable authority) MacPhail remained good law despite the passing of the 1980 Act, and an order for immediate possession was correct.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2007

Statutes:

Housing Act 1980 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown CA 1973
The court was asked to make an order against persons unknown in order to recover land. Although an owner of land which was being occupied by squatters was entitled to take the remedy into his own hand, he was encouraged to go to a common law court . .
Cited – Swordheath Properties Ltd v Floyd 1978
The rules relatng to the grant of immediate possession to a landowner as against squatters applied in the County Court just as much as in the High Court. The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the . .
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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.248073

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 suspended. The tenant argued that the ASBO should be expected to control the nuisance and that a possession order was unnecessary. However the ASBO had been breached.
Held: The judge had had a discretion and he had exercised it. An appeal court had to be shown reason to a high standard before interfering with such a decision. In this case it had. If the son’s misconduct had been so serious and persistent as to justify an ASBO that was a strong reason to justify possession. The confidence shown by the judge in the boy’s reform was wishful thinking. He had continued to commit vandalism following the making of the order. The court should only suspend the order if there is cogent evidence which demonstrates a sound basis for the hope that the previous conduct will cease. In the absence of any sign of remorse or improvement an immediate order for possession was appropriate.
Ward LJ: ‘if the misconduct by a tenant or even by a member of the household were serious and persistent enough to justify an ASBO then that will be strong but not conclusive evidence that the tenant will have forfeited his entitlement to retain possession’.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Gage LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1423, Times 14-Dec-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.237548

Blecic v Croatia: ECHR 29 Jul 2004

The applicant had for many years before 1992 had a protected tenancy of a publicly-owned flat in Zadar. Under Croatian law a specially-protected tenancy might be terminated if the tenant ceased to occupy the flat for a continuous period of six months, but not if the tenant’s failure was attributable to medical treatment, military service or ‘other justified reasons’. The applicant left to visit her daughter in Rome. War then intervened, conditions in Zadar were bad, and the applicant did not return until a time by which another occupant had, without permission, moved into the flat. The local authority had already initiated proceedings to terminate the tenancy. The applicant claimed that she had had justified reasons for not using the flat. This was accepted by an intermediate court, but rejected at first instance and by the Supreme Court. Thus, without justified reasons, the applicant had no grounds for resisting the termination of her tenancy.
Held: The premises in question were, for purposes of article 8, the applicant’s home. The facts disclosed an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home. Under the domestic property law there was no arguable defence to the claim once she had been found to have no justified reasons for her absence. The court considered, at some length, the excepting conditions in article 8. The interference had a legitimate aim. The interference was necessary in a democratic society, namely whether the interference answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court respected the margin of appreciation accorded to national authorities and found that the applicant had had a fair opportunity to put forward her views and resist the claim made against her. The claim was inadmissible.
‘State intervention in socio-economic matters such as housing is often necessary in securing social justice and public benefit. In this area, the margin of appreciation available to the State in implementing social and economic policies is necessarily a wide one. The domestic authorities’ judgment as to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of those policies should be respected unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation. Although this principle was originally set forth in the context of complaints under article 1 of Protocol No 1 . . the State enjoys an equally wide margin of appreciation as regards respect for the home in circumstances such as those prevailing in the present case, in the context of article 8. Thus, the Court will accept the judgment of the domestic authorities as to what is necessary in a democratic society unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation, that is, unless the measure employed is manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.’

Citations:

59532/00, [2004] ECHR 397, (2005) 41 EHRR 185

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Blecic v Croatia ECHR 8-Mar-2006
The applicant alleged that her rights to respect for her home and to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been violated on account of the termination of her specially protected tenancy.
Held: Ratione temporis, the court had had no . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
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.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199860

Clore v Macnicol: CA 13 Jul 2004

Whether assured tenant or assured shorthold tenant. The tenant appealed against an order for possession. The tenant’s mother had been a statutory tenant under the 1997 Act. The tenant said that she had succeeded to that tenancy as an assured tenant, having been living with her mother at the date of her death and for the two year period preceding her death. The judge had found that she had not been living at the property for the two years required, and that her brother had in fact taken the assured tenancy with her agreement.
Held: The findings corresponded with a proper interpretation of the correspondence put before the court and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Chadwick, Wall LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1055

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1997 2(1)(a), Housing Act 1988 39(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199986

Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust: CA 20 Jul 2004

The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the authority once the trusts licence was revoked.
Held: The properties were short life properties, being scheduled for eventual demolition. The original arrangement was informal being only later reduced to writing in a formal licence. There was no basis for saying that a non-secure licence became a secure tenancy on the revocation of the head lease. The trust acted as principal and not as the authority’s agent. As to the tenants’ claims under article 8 of the Convention: ‘The fact is that Lambeth has an unqualified right to possession. And on the basis of the majority opinions in Qazi by which we are bound that is a sufficient answer to the claims under Article 8’ As to eth Connors decision: (Auld LJ) ‘Whilst there is, in those general statements of principle, some support for the argument of Mr Luba, they cannot, it seems to us, affect this court’s assessment of the decision in Qazi. The general statement of principle in paragraph 83 of the Court’s judgment is based upon the Court’s decisions in Buckley, and Chapman, to which it refers, both of which were cited to and considered by the House of Lords in Qazi. Connors is therefore only of assistance to the courts of this country in relation to cases involving gypsies.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 926, Times 26-Jul-2004, [2005] QB 352, [2004] 3 WLR 1396

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part IV

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL 24-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
Cited – Family Association v Jones CA 1990
The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis. They sought possession.
Held: A tenancy had been granted. As to the argument that there were . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Clarke HL 29-Apr-1992
An occupant of a hostel for homeless and vulnerable single men had only a licence to occupy the room, and was not a tenant. There was a resident warden and a team of support workers. The intention was that residents should use the hostel as a . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society and Others CA 1-Nov-1996
Public policy rendered an assignment of a remedy void, where the assignment was an attempt to split it from another remedy. For the purpose of construing a contract the law excludes from the admissible factual background the previous negotiations of . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Islington v Uckac and Another CA 30-Mar-2006
The council’s tenant had unlawfully secured assignment of a secure tenancy to the defendant. The council sought possession.
Held: A secure tenancy granted by an authority pursuant to a misrepresentation by the tenant is nonetheless valid. The . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199315

Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent: CA 17 Jun 2004

The mother of the claimant had complained to the local authority landlord about the absence of locks on her windows. The council replied that such locks could themselves be a hazard, and did not install a lock. The claimant climbed through and fell from a balcony and suffered injury.
Held: In view of the Admas case, the policy was understandable. There was no general duty to supply child proof locks.

Judges:

Potter, Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Bodey Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 715, Times 29-Jun-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cavalier v Pope HL 22-Jun-1906
The wife of the tenant of a house let unfurnished sought to recover from the landlord damages for personal injuries arising from the non-repair of the house, on the ground that the landlord had contracted with her husband to repair the house.
Cited – Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1986
A council owned a two-storey building divided into four flats, one of which was occupied by the plaintiff. It failed to prevent frozen water pipes in the roof of the building (which was outside the demise to the plaintiff) from bursting and flooding . .
Cited – Adams and Another v Rhymney Valley District Council CA 3-Aug-2000
The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198313

Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council,: Admn 26 May 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198219

De Marzokoff v Craig: CA 1949

It was reasonable for the court to take into account when assessing whether alternative accomodation offered was suitable to consider whether it included a garden for the tenant’s children to play in.

Citations:

(1949) 93 Sol Jo 693

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.246042

Poland and Another v Cadogan: CA 1980

The court was called upon to construe the Act. when the question was whether a tenant could bring himself within the Act had to be more strict than the construction of the Rent Acts because the Leasehold Reform Act enabled a tenant to acquire compulsorily a greater interest in the house against the will of the landlord. In order to qualify under Section 1 of the Act, the tenant of a leasehold house had to occupy the house as his residence and at the time of giving notice in accordance with the Act of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease, he had to have been the tenant of the house under a long tenancy at a low rate and have occupied it as his residence for the last five years or for periods amounting to five years in the last 10 years. In that case the applicants, Commander Poland and his wife, had gone abroad leaving the keys of the property in the hands of the mortgagees of the property believing or at least hoping that the house would be sub-let and had been sub-let, so that the rent thus obtained could be used to discharge the mortgage payments. Commander and Mrs Poland had left their furniture in the house during their absence abroad. All three members of the Court of Appeal concluded that the applicants were not during the period of their absence abroad resident in the house nor had they occupied it as their residence for the last five years. Waller LJ: ‘Once it becomes clear that the tenant is not physically in occupation the onus is firmly on him to show that the steps which he has taken to maintain occupation are clear. Going away for a short holiday is simple but the longer the period the more difficult it becomes to infer continued occupation. If the family, wife or children, are still in physical occupation, then the position is clear, but to infer occupation because furniture is left in the house or because there is a caretaker requires closer examination. If the period is short the inference of continued occupation may be easy, but where many months are concerned very much more doubtful. The tenant does not lose the benefit of his periods of genuine occupation because of the provisions allowing aggregation.’ Eveleigh LJ When it came to the question of sub-letting: ‘I am of the opinion that a person may occupy premises as his residence, even though he is absent for a very long period. It may well be, however, that a long absence will necessitate the acquisition of another residence which will prevent the tenant from claiming the premises were his only or main residence, which is the requirement of section 1(2) of the Act. It seems to me that, if a person takes the tenancy of a house and furnishes it and keeps it ready for his own habitation ‘whenever he pleases to go into it’, he is . . . an occupier though he may not reside in it one day in a year, and I would further say that he occupies it as a residence. Moreover, I would say that he occupies it as his residence provided that it is understood that the expression ‘his residence’ is not used in a context which implies his main residence. It means he keeps it for himself to live in. If, however, he sub-lets the property, he ceases to occupy it as his residence because …. the occupation is in the sub-tenant. It may not be inaccurate, however, still to refer to the premises as his residence. That in isolation would be a permissible description of the property, but it does not mean that he is in occupation.’ Megaw LJ: ‘It seems to me that, as regard the former statutory provision, a tenant cannot be said to be occupying a house as his residence during a period of time in respect of which he has no intention of occupying it or residing in it because of his belief, or expectation, whether it is accurate or not, that he has given up his legal right to occupy or reside in the house. He has in respect of that period of time to use the expression used in the judgement of the court in Brown -v- Brash .. no ‘animus possidendi’ ; no intention of asserting or exercising an immediate right of possession. That is an essential element.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Megaw LJ, Eveleigh LJ

Citations:

[1980] 3 All ER 544

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ujima Housing Association v Ansah and Another CA 17-Oct-1997
The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease.
Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.220479

Hicks v Snook: CA 1928

The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Held: The effect of section 12(2)(ii) appeared ‘to affirm in statutory form what the Court of Appeal had decided [in the Epsom Grandstand case].’ The commercial use of part of the premises did not ‘stop the premises in which he lives from being a dwelling house’.

Judges:

Scrutton, Greer and Sankey LJJ

Citations:

(1928) 27 LGR 175

Statutes:

Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 1(1) 12(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242242

British Land Co. Ltd v Herbert Silver (Menswear) Ltd: CA 1958

The court may look to the circumstances surrounding the grant of a lease, and then if necessary the user, to see its purpose, if it is not clear from the lease.

Citations:

[1958] 1 QB 530

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242244

Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Khatun: QBD 1 Oct 1993

An interview to assess a person’s homelessness staus was ultra vires if it was conducted unsympathetically.

Citations:

Independent 01-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex Parte Khatun CA 8-Dec-1994
Homelessness interview was valid though the interviewer knew of housing shortage. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex Parte Khatun CA 8-Dec-1994
Homelessness interview was valid though the interviewer knew of housing shortage. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88205

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia: QBD 11 Oct 1995

An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 11-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88303

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.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1996, (1996) 29 HLR 389

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 60(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88305

Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v Miah: CA 29 Jan 1992

A homeless person given a licence to occupy temporarily a house themselves leased by the Local Authority in order to provide temporary accommodation for the homeless, had not been given a tenancy of that property. The section covered situations where the local authority had less than a full freehold interest.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Jan-1992

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch 1 para 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.89932

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 level of damages. For the breach of landlord’s covenant to repair.
Held: The court allowed the landlord’s appeal and reduced the damages to andpound;8,000, subject to set-off in respect of some of the landlord’s costs. Where a tenant was awarded damages for a landlord’s breach of his covenant to repair, the damages awarded should reflect the rent payable under the lease. The tenant here had the benefit of a secure tenancy at a rent well below the market rent, and the damages were reduced accordingly. The court criticised the conduct of the hearing by the judge: ‘[The judge’s] behaviour is unacceptable. He is both abrupt and discourteous. He makes it clear he is not prepared to entertain argument, and gives no reasons.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 434, Times 02-Jun-2004, Gazette 20-May-2004, [2004] HLR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGriel v Wake CA 1984
. .
Cited – Fayner v Bilton 1878
. .
Cited – Wallace and others v Manchester City Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Damages payable to a tenant for a landlord’s failure to repair whilst the tenant remained in the property were not separate damages for discomfort and diminution in rental value since these amounted to the same thing: ‘for periods when the tenant . .

Cited by:

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. . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Damages

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197044

Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 23 Oct 2003

A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was adequate to place them immediately in temporary accommodation which would be adequate in the short term, pending the finding of properly suitable accommodation for the longer term. A balancing exercise had to be made. The adequacy of the temporary accommodation was not to be tested as to its adequacy for non-disabled children, but rather for the disabilities of these particular children.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1473, Times 31-Oct-2003

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2002
The court was concerned to interpret s122(4) of the 1999 Act relating to ‘essential living needs’. Basic support and basic essential needs by reference to non-disabled asylum seekers would be provided by the Secretary of State under the 1999 Act, . .
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 . .
Appeal from – A, Regina (on the Application of) v National Asylum Support Service and Another CA 23-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187086

Long v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 27 Mar 2002

The claimant was a tenant of the flat and the respondents were landlords. She claimed damages for breach of the landlord’s covenant to take reasonable steps to keep the common parts clear. The authority argued that its appointment and payment of independent contractors to do the work satisfied that duty.
Held: The appointment itself was not sufficient discharge of the duty. There was no adequate system for monitoring the performance of the covenant by the contractors.

Judges:

Ward, Chadwick and Arden LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-May-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.171181

Regina v London Borough of Hounslow ex parte R: Admn 19 Feb 1997

The Applicant was 65 years old, with a history of criminal offences including serious sexual assaults on children. On release from prison, he presented himself as homeless. After his imprisonment, he had realised that he would be unable to keep up the rent, and surrendered his tenancy.
Held: A deliberate act which in fact lead to an applicant’s homelessness did mean that the applicant was to be treated as being intentionally homeless. In this case a criminal act had led to imprisonment and his homelessness upon release. The approach to be adopted in considering whether an applicant became homeless intentionally is the test of reasonable likelihood rather than an unqualified test of causation in fact,

Judges:

Mr Stephen Richards

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 165

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 60(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Robinson v Torbay Borough Council QBD 1982
The plaintiffs had fallen behind with their rent, which resulted ultimately in an order for possession. The council found that the plaintiffs were threatened with homelessness intentionally.
Held: In relation to the argument that a person is . .
Cited – Regina v Thanet District Council, ex parte Reeve QBD 1981
A woman had been dismissed from employment for deliberate misconduct and had lost her tied accommodation. The council concluded that she had become intentionally homeless because she must have known that the consequence of her misconduct could be . .
Cited – Devenport v Salford City Council CA 1983
A possession order was made because of the misconduct of the tenants and their children. The council made a finding of intentional homelessness, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Held: For the purposes of the homelessness legislation, . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith, ex parte P QBD 1989
The applicants were members of six homeless families who had occupied accommodation in Northern Ireland. The council concluded that members of each household except one had been guilty of criminal and anti-social behaviour, as a result of which the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Stewart v London Borough of Lambeth CA 26-Apr-2002
The local authority said that the claimant, having been sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment for drugs offences, had made himself intentionally homeless within the section. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for non-payment of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.137110

Bibi, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden: Admn 11 Oct 2004

The court had made a joint residence order, but the housing department offered the wife only a one bedroomed department which would not allow her children to stay with her.
Held: The local authority decision had to be set aside. In future when making such orders the exact for of residence required might be set out and the local authority consulted.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2527 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Family

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.219258

M v London Borough of Islington and Another: CA 2 Apr 2004

The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had power to provide her with assistance. Though the authority had no duty to the parent whilst here unlawfully, that said nothing about the duty to the child. The statutory Guidance permits the provision of accommodation for a period until travel arrangements are made by the Home Office. Thart assistance need not be limited to ten days.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Buxton, And Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 235, Times 22-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Children Act 1989 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another QBD 5-Jun-2003
The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex part D 1999
It was not outside a local authority’s powers to supply an air ticket to assist a failed asylum seeker to return home with her children. . .
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 – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Laker Airways v Department of Trade CA 15-Dec-1976
Policy guidance issued by the respondent was unlawful because it was contrary to the statutory objectives laid down for the Civil Aviation Authority by section 3 of the 1971 Act. The court discussed the status of guidance issued by the respondent: . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – De Falco v Crawley Borough Council CA 1980
The court discussed the effect of statutory guidance in the form of a code: ‘the council of course had to have regard to the code: see section 12 of the statute; but, having done so, they could depart from it if they thought fit’. . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another QBD 5-Jun-2003
The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195902

Campbell and others v South Northamptonshire District Council, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions: CA 7 Apr 2004

The claimants were members of the Jesus Fellowship church, living communally. Their claim for housing benefit was rejected on the basis that the payment made was not by way of a commercial rental.
Held: The court could take into account the background of the payments in deciding whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis. To take that into account was not discrimination infringing their freedom of religion. The question posed was one of fact, and the Convention did not operate to make evidence inadmissible on such an issue.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 409, Times 23-Apr-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 387

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195490

Regina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts: HL 27 Jul 1983

Mr Betts applied to Eastleigh for accommodation under the 1977 Act. They said that he had no local connection and referred his application to Blaby where the applicant and his family had formerly been living. Blaby accepted the referral and offered accommodation, but he refused it and made a further application to Eastleigh. In relation to that application Eastleigh took the view that, in referring the earlier application under section 5 of the 1977 Act, they had discharged their duty to the applicant. The applicant sought judicial review of that decision on the grounds that Eastleigh (in that context, the notifying authority) had been wrong to decide that the applicant had no local connection with their own district. The basis for that decision was that the applicant’s connection with Eastleigh did not fall within the working definition of ‘normal residence’ set out in the Agreement on Procedures for Referrals of the Homeless.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded. The question was whether the respondents had a ‘local connection’ with the appellants’ area within section 18(1)(a) for the purposes of section 5(1).
Held: ‘local connection’ was not a defined expression, the effect of which was to allow a reader to construe it by substituting ‘is or was normally resident in,’ or ‘is employed in,’ or ‘has family associations with’ for the words ‘has a local connection with’. The section was intended to specify those factors alone upon which a local connection could be founded. The fundamental question was the existence of a local connection: ‘In construing section 5 it is only to be expected that the emphasis falls on ‘local connection’, and not on past or present residence or current employment, etc. The Act is one which enables a homeless person in certain circumstances to jump over the heads of all other persons on a housing authority’s waiting list, to jump the queue. One would not expect any just legislation to permit this to be done unless the applicant has in a real sense a local connection with the area in question. I accept that ‘residence’ may be changed in a day, and that in appropriate circumstances a singe day’s residence may be enough to enable a person to say that he was normally resident in the area in which he arrived only yesterday. But ‘local connection’ means far more than that. It must be built up and established; by a period of residence; or by a period of employment; or by family associations which have endured in the area; or by other special circumstances which spell out a local connection in real terms.’
Lord Brightman spoke of the national ‘Agreement on Procedures for Referrals of the Homeless’: ‘it is obvious that time consuming and expensive disputes might arise between housing authorities as to the existence of a ‘local connection’. Such disputes are not in the interest either of housing authorities or of homeless persons. The purposes of the Act demand speedy solutions to questions of doubt. To avoid such disputes, and to settle them quickly and cheaply if they arise, certain steps have been taken on behalf of housing authorities. First, in order to facilitate agreements between notifying authorities and notified authorities as required by section 5(7) a national ‘Agreement on Procedures for Referrals of the Homeless’ was negotiated between the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association at the time when the Bill was being considered by Parliament. This agreement has been adhered to by the majority of housing authorities. Secondly, by the Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) Order 1978 (SI 1978 No 69), the Secretary of State for the Environment, in exercise of his powers under section 5(8) has established the ‘Appropriate Arrangements’ set out in the schedule to the order for the purpose of settling unresolved disputes between housing authorities. These arrangements are in a form which was agreed by the three associations who negotiated the Agreement on Procedures. They provide for any disputed question under section 5 to be determined speedily either by a person agreed upon by the authorities concerned or by a person chosen from a panel. These arrangements came into operation on January 21, 1978, that is to say a few weeks after the Act of 1977 came into force. There is evidence that he Agreement on Procedures has worked well, and that as a result there have only been about 50 references under the order since the Act came into force.
The Agreement on Procedures does not purport to impose a legally binding code on housing authorities who adhere to it. It is merely a policy document.’

Judges:

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Roskill, Lord Brightman

Citations:

[1983] 2 AC 613, [1983] UKHL 9, [1983] 3 WLR 397, [1984] Fam Law 25, [1983] 2 All ER 111

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 5(1) 18(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade HL 15-Jul-1970
Cylinders containing hydrogen gas were being put on a trailer pulled by a tractor for the purpose of delivery to the premises of the purchaser. One of the issues before the court was whether the function of the hydrogen trailers and the cylinders . .
Appeal from – Regina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts CA 1983
Mr Betts appealed a refusal of accomodation by Eastliegh who had said he had no local connection, but had lived in Blaby.
Held: Lord Justice Stephenson the chief housing officer ‘did fetter the council’s decision by a rigid application of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
Cited – Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .
Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193592

Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals): HL 5 Feb 2004

The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having been rehoused in other areas had lost any connection with the area. The applicants said that the re-housing had been compulsory, being part of a policy of dispersal of asylum applicants, and so their connection with the appellate local authorities was not lost.
Held: The authorities’ appeals were dismissed. The applicants had not exercised any real sense of choice in accepting dispersal. It was wrong to describe a Hobson’s choice as a real choice. If asked ‘Did you choose to live in Glasgow’ the only true answer could be ‘No.’ A normal residence which might operate to defeat a local connection with a previous area had to be of the resident’s own choice. This choice had not been freely made.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 4, Times 06-Feb-2004, Gazette 04-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 AC 159

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Al-Ameri, Osmani v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/London Borough of Harrow CA 28-Feb-2003
The applicants sought to assert a local connection, having been housed in the respondent’s areas as destitute asylum seekers.
Held: The accomodation was not one of the applicant’s choice, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch HL 1975
The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their . .
Distinguished – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – Regina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts HL 27-Jul-1983
Mr Betts applied to Eastleigh for accommodation under the 1977 Act. They said that he had no local connection and referred his application to Blaby where the applicant and his family had formerly been living. Blaby accepted the referral and offered . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192675

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 strictly. It asked whether, if he was left homeless he would be less able to fend for himself, so as to suffer some particluar harm. The words of the Homelessness Code were for guidance only and could not override the words of the Act. The Act did not ask whether harm was likely, but whether it would occur. The Act was not to be read down, and the appeal failed. The Secretray of State might wish to reconsider the words used in the Code of Guidance.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘The status of the code is clear from Section 182(1) of the Act. In exercising their functions local housing authorities must ‘have regard to’ the code, but if the code differs from the statute, as interpreted by this court, it is the statute which prevails.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Clarke, Jacob LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Feb-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 108, Gazette 11-Mar-2004, [2004] HLR 32

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
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 – Bennington v Peter; Regina v Swaffham Justices ex parte Peter QBD 1984
The applicant held a heavy goods vehicle licence. He became diabetic. The licensing authority refused to renew his licence. He appealed.
Held: The justices had used the wrong test, saying he could not be said not to be likeley to suffer a . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Harouki v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 17-Oct-2007
The applicant sought housing as a homeles person. Her present accommodation for herself, her husband and five children was so overcrowded that continued occupation was a criminal offence. She appealed a finding that it was reasonable to continue . .
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: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192635

Bradney, Birmingham City Council v Birmingham City Council, McCann: CA 9 Dec 2003

Birmingham Council had granted H and W a joint secure tenancy of a three-bedroom home. The marriage broke down and W left with the two children. She obtained a non-molestation order and an ouster order against him. H tried to force his way into the home. W applied to the council, and it provided her with alternative accommodation. H returned to the house and then applied to the council for a mutual exchange with another tenant because the house was larger than he required. An officer persuaded W to surrender the tenancy, but did not advise her that this would leave H homeless. The council obtained an order for possession.
Held: H argued that in seeking to obtain from the wife the notice to quit the council had circumvented the statutory powers in relation to recovery of possession of a secure tenancy. Article 8 was not available as a defence even though the property was H’s ‘home’ under the Convention.
The council had acted within its powers and the notice to quit at common law terminated the secure tenancy. Section 82 did not apply. The notice had effect though W signed without appreciating the consequences for H. This was not a ‘wholly exceptional’ case where, for example, something had happened since the service of the notice to quit which had fundamentally altered the rights and wrongs of the proposed eviction, and the council might be required to justify its claim to override the Article 8 right.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1783, [2004] HLR 27

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-May-2008
The applicant and his wife were secure joint tenants of a house of a local authority under section 82. Their marriage broke down, and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children of the marriage. She returned after obtaining a . .
Cited – Coombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188690

Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others: CA 30 Oct 2003

The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A panel had recommended that more be done to support local authorities, including the recommendation of sites. The authority set out a plan that the need should be satisfied within local plans.
Held: The departure from the recommendation must have been a deliberate one. Before taking that departure, it was obliged to have prepared a list of departures from the recommendations, for comment. It had not done so. The procedural obligations had not been met.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Waller, Carnwath, LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1614

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Butler, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others Admn 26-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Butler, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others Admn 26-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187673

Erskine, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth and Another: Admn 14 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2479 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187609

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 the 1989 Act. The landlord claimed an implied surrender under the 1925 Act. That required some act inconsistent with the continuance of a tenancy which created an estoppel against the tenant. The grant of a second tenancy could constitute such an act. The mere leaving of the apartment was insufficient. The notice to quit invalidated any earlier implication of surrender, but the changing of the rent book could constitute such an act.

Judges:

Mantell, Clarke LJJ, Rimer J

Citations:

Times 30-Oct-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1602, Gazette 20-Nov-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2, Law of Property Act 1925 52(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lyon v Reed 1844
The court examined the principle of the surrender of a lease by operation of law: ‘. . . all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the . .
Cited – Allen and Another v Rochdale Borough Council CA 23-Mar-1999
Land was sold. It had been used as playing fields. The freehold and leasehold interests in the land were held by the respondent, and the claimants asserted it was held as bare trustees for them as charitable trustees for the school foundation. The . .
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – Hackney London Borough Council v Snowden CA 2001
A short notice to quit might be given by a landlord if accepted by a tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187385

Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council: HL 26 Nov 1981

The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal re-instated it, and the applicants now appealed again. The applicants had first sought advice from the council and had been told to stay in their existing accomodation, but had instead taken temporary accomodation.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Russell Of Killowen, Lord Bridge Of Harwich dissenting)
Lord Wilberforce said of the 1977 Act: ‘One of the main purposes of that Act was to secure that, when accommodation is provided for homeless persons by the housing authority, it should be made available for all members of his family together and to end the practice which had previously been common under which adult members of a homeless family were accommodated in hostels while children were taken into care, and the family thus split up. The emphasis on treating the family as a unit appears from section 1 which provides that a person is homeless for the purpose of the Act if he has no accommodation, and that he is to be treated as having no accommodation if there is no accommodation which he ‘together with any other person who normally resides with him as a member of his family . . is entitled to occupy’ (section 1 (1) (a)). The particular emphasis on families with children appears from section 2 which provides that a homeless person has ‘a priority need for accommodation’ when the housing authority is satisfied that he is within one of certain categories, the first of which is that ‘he has dependant children who are residing with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him’: (section 2 (1) (a)).’
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said: ‘While the main purposes of that Act was to secure that, when accommodation is provided for homeless persons by the housing authority, it should be made available for all the members of his family together and to end the practice which had previously been common under which adult members of a homeless family were accommodated in hostels while children were taken into care, and the family thus split up. The emphasis on treating the family as a unit appears from section 1 which provides that a person is homeless for the purposes of the Act if he has no accommodation, and that he is to be treated as having no accommodation if there is no accommodation which he ‘together with any other person who normally resides with him as a member of his family . . is intended to occupy’ (section 1(1)(a)). The particular emphasis on families with children appears from section 2 which provides that a homeless person has ‘a priority need for accommodation’ when the housing authority is satisfied that he is within one of certain categories, the first of which is that ‘he has dependant children who are residing with him or who might reasonably expect to reside with him’: (section 2(1)(a)).’
Lord Lowry said: ‘to be homeless and to have found some temporary accommodation are not mutually inconsistent concepts’.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Lowry, Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1983] 1 AC 657, [1981] UKHL 14, [1981] 3 WLR 918, [1982] 1 All ER 1022, (1981-82) 1 HLR 73, [1981] 3 All ER 881

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council CA 23-Jun-1981
. .
Costs – Din and Another v London Borough of Wandsworth HL 25-Mar-1982
Costs Judgment . .

Cited by:

Cited – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Doubted – 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 – Regina v London Borough of Ealing Ex parte Sidhu 2-Jan-1982
The applicant, in flight from domestic violence, had gone with her two young children, to stay in a women’s refuge. The local authority argued that she was not homeless because she had accommodation available to her in the refuge.
Held: The . .
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 – Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond Upon Thames HL 4-Feb-2009
The father had been awarded shared residence for three children. He asked the local authority to provide appropriate housing.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded.
‘When any family court decides with whom the children of separated . .
Cited – Stewart v London Borough of Lambeth CA 26-Apr-2002
The local authority said that the claimant, having been sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment for drugs offences, had made himself intentionally homeless within the section. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for non-payment of . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Sharif v The London Borough of Camden SC 20-Feb-2013
The council appealed against a decision that having found Ms Sharif to be homeless, they had a duty also to house her sick father and sister as family members in one accomodation unit.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded (Lord Kerr . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Approved – Regina v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Ex parte Bassett 1983
The housing applicant had given up the tenancy of a house in Basingstoke when she and her husband decided to emigrate to Canada. They moved to Canada, but their application to stay permanently was refused, and they had to return to England, where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186105

Karner v Austria: ECHR 24 Jul 2003

A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners ‘pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of unmarried different-sex partners and unmarried same-sex partners, and that that view is supported by recommendations and legislation of European institutions’.
Held: The claim succeeded. As to the margin of appreciation the ECHR stated: ‘The Court can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment. It remains to be ascertained whether, in the circumstances of the case, the principle of proportionality has been respected. The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete measures may be used to implement it. In cases in which the margin of appreciation afforded to Member States is narrow, as [is] the position where there is a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realising the aim sought. It must also be shown that it was necessary to exclude persons living in a homosexual relationship from the scope of [the relevant provision] of the Rent Act in order to achieve that aim.’ The court expressly did not decide whether the applicant’s case fell within the scope of ‘family life’ or ‘private life’.

Judges:

CL ROZAKIS, P

Citations:

(2003) 38 EHRR 528, 40016/98, (2003) 2 FLR 623, [2003] ECHR 395, [2003] Fam Law 724, [2004] 2 FCR 563, 14 BHRC 674, [2004] 38 EHRR 24

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Superceded – S v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed . .
Superceded – Roosli v Germany ECHR 1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186171

Di Palma v United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Dec 1986

(Commission/admissibility) The applicant’s lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also complained that her eviction from her home constituted an unjustified interference with the right to respect for her home protected by article 8. The Commission held this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded because ‘any interference with [her] right to respect for her home which the forfeiture of her lease engendered was in conformity with Article 8(2).’ The interference with the applicant’s article 8 rights brought about by the forfeiture of her lease on account of her failure to pay a service charge ‘ . . was in conformity with Art.8(2) as a measure which was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others.’
A private sector landlord forfeited a long and valuable residential lease for non-payment of a relatively small amount of service charge, and the court refused the tenant relief from forfeiture owing to her refusal to apply within the statutorily prescribed time. The Commission rejected the tenant’s application, which was based on articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 and on A1P1, as manifestly ill-founded, as the Government’s Convention responsibilities were not engaged by an ‘exclusively private law relationship between the parties’
The fact that a domestic court made the orders granting forfeiture and refusing relief made no difference, as the court ‘merely provided a forum for the determination of the civil right in dispute between the parties’.

Citations:

(1986) 10 EHRR 149, 11949/86, [1986] ECHR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
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 . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council SC 12-Nov-2014
Surrender at Common Law Survives Human Rights Law
The tenants held a secure weekly tenancy of the respondent under a joint tenancy. After a relationship breakdown, Mrs Sims had given notice to quit. Mr Sims, left in possession now argued that the common law rules should not be allowed to deprive . .
Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
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.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185438

Butler, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others: Admn 26 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 886 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others CA 30-Oct-2003
The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others CA 30-Oct-2003
The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185570