Regina v London Borough of Wandsworth ex parte Ann Garvey: Admn 8 Apr 1997

The claimant said that the housing offered to her as a single mother with four children, one hyper-active, was inadequate. It was complained that the Doctor advising the authority had included in her report a consideration of what resources were available to the authority.
Held: The report focussed on the recommendation, and the recommendation was of a particular type of housing. Her judgement was of the health, and effect on the health, of the applicant. It was not to be criticised, and the application failed.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 343

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1995 69

Citing:

CitedRegina v Greenwich London Borough Council ex parte Dukic 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137288

Regina v Hackney London Borough Council Ex Parte K: CA 12 Nov 1997

A change in housing law is not retrospective so as to allow a local authority to re-assess an asylum seeker as not being in need of emergency housing. Once the decision had been made, it was improper to re-open it and give notice to existing tenants.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 17-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.86792

Brock v Wollams: CA 1949

A child had been adopted in fact and lived with the tenant for many years, but had not been formally adopted under the Act claimed to inherit the tenancy on his death.
Held: He was to be considered to be a member of the former tenant’s family living with him at his death within the meaning of the Act of 1920. Both de facto adopted and illegitimate children were included as family. CohenLJ: ‘The question the county court judge should have asked himself was this: Would an ordinary man, addressing his mind to the question whether [the daughter] was a member of the family or not, have answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’? To that question I think there is only one possible answer, and that is ‘yes’.’ (‘the ‘Cohen Question’) and ‘It seems to me that ‘members of the tenant’s family’ within section 12 sub-section 1(g) of the Act of 1920, include not only legitimate children but also step-children, illegitimate children and adopted children, whether adopted in due form of law or not.’ (Denning LJ) The test was that the ‘trial judge should ask himself this question: would an ordinary person, addressing his mind to the question whether the defendant was a member of the family, have answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’? ‘ The narrow meaning of relations by blood or marriage was rejected, so also was the idea that ‘family’ could be equated with ‘household.’ A bond which goes no further than the fact that the group are living under the same roof is not enough.

Judges:

Bucknill LJ, Cohen LJ, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1949] 2 KB 388

Statutes:

Adoption of Children Act 1926

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedPrice v Gould 1930
In relation to wills and settlements the legislature had used the word ‘family’ ‘to introduce a flexible and wide term’ so that brothers and sisters were to be treated as members of the family. The word was a ‘popular, loose and flexible . .

Cited by:

CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
ApprovedCarega Properties SA v Sharratt CA 1979
The Court referred to the ‘Cohen’ Question: ‘. . it is for this court to decide, where such an issue arises, whether, assuming all the facts found by the judge to be correct, the question may, as a matter of law, within the permissible limits of the . .
CitedSheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
The claimant had been a foster son and was now the administrator of the estate of the deceased tenant. He sought to occupy the property as a successor under the 1985 Act. He said that as a former foster child, he had become a member of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Family

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.215903

Watson v Lucas: CA 1980

A woman who had lived with a man, although he remained married to his wife, was a member of his family for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1977 because of the lasting relationship between them.

Judges:

Oliver LJ

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 1493

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confined to its factsDyson Holdings Ltd v Fox CA 17-Oct-1975
The defendant had lived with the tenant for 21 years until his death. They were unmarried and had no children. Reversing the County Court judge, the Court of Appeal ruled that she was a member of his family. It was absurd to distinguish between two . .

Cited by:

CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.215906

Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Jibril: Admn 21 Jan 1997

The court considered what background could be allowed for when, in a homelessness application, the applicant said that it would be unreasonable to expect him to continue to occupy his present dwelling.
Held: ‘in judging what is suitable, the authority is entitled to look at the position in broad terms, having regard to the general shortage and nature of accommodation.’

Judges:

Stephen Richards

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 42, (1997) 29 HLR 785

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedHarouki 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: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136987

Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Anita Bradford Raymond Bradford, Simon Bradford (a Minor By His Next Friend Raymond Bradford): Admn 13 Jan 1997

Section 17(1) imposes an obligation in respect of the needs of an individual child.

Judges:

Kay J

Citations:

(1997) 29 HLR 756, [1997] EWHC Admin 4, (1997) 1 CCLR 294

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17(1)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham ex parte Makila Ebuki and Brandon Ebuki (By His Mother and Litigation Friend Makila Ebuki) Admn 5-Dec-2000
The applicants sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to evict her and her children from emergency accommodation for the homeless without further provision, saying the council failed its duty to her child under section 17.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children, Local Government

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136949

Mary Rushton, Michael Rushton v Worcester City Council: CA 16 Mar 2001

The claimants had purchased the first tenant’s council property under the right to buy scheme. The council had failed to disclose facts about its condition which rendered it valueless, but now appealed against the award of damages for misrepresentation. It had failed to disclose the fact and significance of the use of High Alumina Cement in its construction.

Judges:

Potter, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 367, [2001] NPC 65, [2002] HLR 9, [2003] RVR 129, [2001] 13 EGCS

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part V

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoRushton and Another v Worcester City Council CA 22-May-2001
Application to correct mathematical errors in the main judgment. . .
CitedLondon Borough of Haringey v Hines CA 20-Oct-2010
The authority sought rescission of a lease granted to the defendant under the right to buy scheme, saying that she had misrepresented her occupation when applying. The tenant replied that no adequate evidence had been brought that she was not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135535

Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Housing Benefit Review Board, Ex Parte Kapur: QBD 28 Jun 2000

An application for a loan or grant toward the costs of repair could constitute steps being taken to make premises habitable. The applicant owned a substantial property which had fallen into disrepair. He claimed housing benefit for the property where he actually lived. The refusal of housing benefit because of the capital value of the other property was incorrect. The rules allowed a disregard for the value of a property being repaired.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 Sch 5 para 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.85592

Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Chairman of the London Rent Assessment Committee: Admn 19 Apr 2002

The respondent had determined a fair rent under the 1977 Act, on the grounds that LRAC had adopted an impermissible approach to the question of whether any ‘scarcity’ deduction fell to be made and to its assessment of that deduction as 30%.

Judges:

Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 835 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMetropolitan Properties v Finegold CA 1975
The rental values of a block of flats were increased because of the presence nearby of an American school; the case turned on the equivalent provisions in the Rent Act 1968 to section 70(1) in the 1977 Act.
Held: One must have regard to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.172199

Regina v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Byrne: Admn 28 Feb 1997

Application to review decision that applicant though in priority need was homeless through her own voluntary act in failing to pay rent.
Held: Sufficient evidence had been placed before the committee for it to be able to say that it could conclude, as it had, that the presumption that she was party to the failure to pay rent in her previous accomodation was not rebutted.

Judges:

Rich J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 197

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Thanet District Council ex parte Groves QBD 1993
The applicant lived with her husband and family in rented accomodation. The husband drank, and spent money which should have gone to the rent. Though she had some small involvement, she did not know of the extent of the rent arrears. He left, and . .
CitedRegina v North Devon District Council ex parte Lewis 1988
The court was asked what the effect of the conduct of one member of a family might be on the classification of other members as being voluntarily homeless: ‘the fact that the Act requires consideration of the family unit as a whole indicates that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.137142

Flores, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: CA 15 Dec 2020

The court considered whether the appellant, who lived with his partner and their two children in a one bedroom flat where they were ‘statutorily overcrowded’, was entitled to be included within Band 1 of Southwark Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme. The council decided that he was not, because he had caused the overcrowding by his own deliberate act in moving into the property in the first place.

Judges:

Lord Justice Males

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656770

Sheppard-Capurro, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel: Admn 27 Jul 2005

Judges:

Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1867 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSpath Home Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee QBD 13-Jul-1994
The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of . .
CitedCurtis v Chairman of London Rent Assessment Committee; Huntingford and Packford CA 9-Oct-1997
The claimant sought to appeal the quashing of determinations of a fair rent for two properties. . .
CitedSpath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee CA 9-Aug-1995
The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.229743

Brown v Liverpool Corpn: CA 1969

The premises at issue consisted of a terraced house to which access was obtained from the street through a gate, down some steps and along a two metre path which led to the front door of the house.
Held: The steps were part of the exterior of the dwelling-house for the purpose of section 32(1)(a) of the 1961 Act.
Danckwerts LJ said that, as the steps were ‘the means of access’ to the dwelling-house in question, they were ‘plainly part of the building’.
Salmon LJ, agreeing, thought the case was not ‘by any means free from difficulty, or, indeed, from doubt’ and emphasised that his decision was based ‘on the particular facts of this case’ and not on ‘any general principle of law’.
Sachs LJ said that the case had ’caused [him] no little difficulty’, that he had ‘considerable hesitation’ and that the argument was ‘a very close run thing’; while he accepted that the covenant did not apply to ‘those parts of the demise that are not part of the building itself’, he considered that the issue was ‘one of degree and fact’, and that the judge had been ‘entitled’ to conclude that the steps were within the covenant.

Judges:

Danckwerts LJ, Salmon LJ, Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1969] 3 All ER 1345

Statutes:

Housing Act 1961 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decidedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622268

Hopwood v Cannock Chase District Council: CA 1975

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 373

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcAuley v Bristol City Council CA 25-Jun-1991
The Council appealed against a finding of liability to the plaintiff tenant who slipped and fell in the back garden of the tenanted house. . .
ApprovedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622318

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 temporary base as part of their rehabilitation.
Held: An agreement which gives a right to exclusive possession is prima facie a tenancy. The accommodation was however provided for a clear purpose, and that would require the ability to ask residents to swap rooms or to move on. ‘This is a very special case which depends on the peculiar nature of the hostel maintained by the Council, the use of the hostel by the Council, the totality immediacy and objectives of the powers exercisable by the Council and the restrictions imposed on Mr Clarke. The decision in this case will not allow a landlord private or public to free himself from the Rent Acts or from the restrictions of a secure tenancy merely by adopting or adapting the language of the licence to occupy.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

Gazette 29-Apr-1992, [1992] AC 288, [1992] 24 HLR 360, [1992] UKHL 11, [1992] 1 All ER 695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUratemp 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 . .
CitedParkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .
CitedBrennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA 3-Jun-1997
The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .
CitedBruton 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 . .
CitedKay, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90421

William Watson Stirling v Leadenhall Residential 2 Ltd: CA 29 Jun 2001

Held. A tenant who continued to stay in property after a possession order was granted, but who paid a sum equivalent to rent as it fell due, and something off the arrears, did not necessarily thereby become a tenant again, but could be viewed as a tolerated trespasser. That status might be compromised as against the landlord where he requested a sum which was, in effect, a rent increase. That request was incompatible with the terms of the court order granting him possession, and created a new tenancy.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Latham LJ, Lloyd J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1011, [2002] I WLR 499, [2001] 3 All ER 645, [2002] L and TR 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStreet v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
CitedJavad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89565

Metropolitan Properties v Finegold: CA 1975

The rental values of a block of flats were increased because of the presence nearby of an American school; the case turned on the equivalent provisions in the Rent Act 1968 to section 70(1) in the 1977 Act.
Held: One must have regard to the sort of factors which tend to push rents up or down on the market, to the age of the premises, up or down according to whether the premises are old or modern, to their character and their locality, because a house situate in pleasant surroundings, and with the advantage of local amenities, may command a higher rent than an identical house in a less attractive setting. If the committee took the view that the presence of a school made the houses in the surrounding area, and in particular these flats, more attractive, and thus likely to command more rent, then so far as section 46 (1) is concerned the fair rent ought to reflect that factor. In subsection (1), any amenity,any advantage which the premises inherently have, in their construction, their nature, their scale, their situation, their proximity to a school, a zoo or a theatre, whatever it may be, all those factors which would tend in the market to increase the rental, are factors to be taken into account by the committee in fixing the fair rent. The presence of an attractive school would tend to put up the fair rent because it would be an amenity making the premises more attractive.

Judges:

Lord Widgery

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 349

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 46(1) 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina, Ex Parte Spath Holme Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and The Regions, Secretary of State For Wales CA 20-Jan-2000
Regulations made to ease the effect of changes on the calculation of registered rents were ultra vires and void. The Act under which they were made was intended to control inflation. The purpose of these Regulations was to ease the effect on . .
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Chairman of the London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 19-Apr-2002
The respondent had determined a fair rent under the 1977 Act, on the grounds that LRAC had adopted an impermissible approach to the question of whether any ‘scarcity’ deduction fell to be made and to its assessment of that deduction as 30%. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.180399

Regina (Lester) v London Rent Assessment Committee: QBD 7 Nov 2002

The tenant sought to request the Committee to fix his rent. He sent the application, but it was not received before it came into effect. He appealed a rejection of his claim as out of time.
Held: The regulation required the rent to be referred to the committee before the new rent came into effect. That required the notice to be received in time. A reference to the committee could not be construed to include the sending of the notice.

Judges:

Sir Richard Tucker

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Lester v The London Rent Assessment Committee CA 12-Mar-2003
The court faced the question of, whether if a landlord serves a notice on an assured tenant under section 13(2) of the Act proposing an increase in rent, that will be the rent unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.178297

Regina v Ealing London Borough Council Ex Parte Nicola Surdonja: Admn 20 Oct 1998

The homeless applicant family were housed in two hostels approximately a mile apart.
Held: A housing authority’s duty to provide interim accommodation pending homelessness decision extended to the provision of suitable accommodation. There was no justification for any other reading of the section. Housing which split up a family was not suitable.
Scott Baker J said: ‘In my judgment the obligation is not discharged by providing split accommodation in separate dwellings. It is the policy of the law that families should be kept together; they should be able to live together as a unit. I can well see that the obligation could be discharged by, for example, separate rooms in the same hotel, but not I think in two entirely separate hostels up to a mile apart.’

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

Times 30-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 988, [1999] 1 ALL ER 566

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188

Cited by:

Appeal fromEaling 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 . .
CitedSharif 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86604

Regina v London Rent Assessment Panel, Ex Parte Cadogan Estates Ltd: Admn 4 Jun 1997

If the proper rent is higher than the statutory maximum, then the rent should be so set and the assured tenancy status lost. The Committee was not prohibited from assessing the rent of the assured tenancy arising on termination of the long tenancy in excess of andpound;25,000.

Judges:

Kay J

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 515, (1998) 30 HLR 487, [1997] 3 WLR 833, [1997] 2 EGLR 134, [1998] QB 398, [1997] 34 EG 88, (1998) 76 P and CR 410

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 14

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina (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 . .
CitedHughes v Borodex Ltd Admn 25-Mar-2009
The tenant under a long lease appealed against a rent assessment which increased the amount payable to a level where she lost her security of tenure. She said that 17 year old improvements she had made should not have been taken into account.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87211

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 such as income support. The Act should be read so as to disallow a refusal by local authorities to house destitute asylum seekers. Local Authority has residual duty to support destitute asylum applicants who had been refused benefits.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Nov-1996, Times 10-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 90, (1997) 1 CCLR 85, (1997) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21 22

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedRegina v Greater Manchester Council ex parte Worch 1988
The court considered to what extent it could look to the form of an Act before it was amended in order to assist it in construing the Act as amended: ‘The original section 21(a) of the [Coroners (Amendment) Act] 1926 is no longer law, since it has . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
Appeal fromRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedVictor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86806

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 with accommodation in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1985 Act was once again made homeless or threatened with homelessness (for example, because the Council or other landlord had terminated his right of occupation), he might apply again, and the Council would be required once again to make enquiries under section 62(1). Suitability is primarily a matter of space and arrangement though no doubt other matters may also be material. It is important when considering an authority’s duty under the two parts of the Act not to confuse them.
Lord Hoffmann reviewed the case law: ‘The consequence of the decision in Ex parte Puhlhofer was that a person accommodated in conditions so intolerable that it would not be reasonable for him to continue to occupy that accommodation was not homeless although, if he actually left, he would not thereby become intentionally homeless. This produced the inconvenient result that persons living in such conditions had to put themselves on the street before they could activate the local authority’s duty to provide them with accommodation. To remedy this difficulty, the 1986 amendments (by sections 14(1) and (2)) again introduced a definition of ‘accommodation’ in section 58(2A) of the Act of 1985: ‘A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’ Guidance on the quality of accommodation which a local housing authority is entitled to treat as reasonable for a person to continue to occupy is provided by section 58(2B) (as added by the Act of 1986):
‘Regard may be had, in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district of the local housing authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation.’
It follows that a local authority is entitled to regard a person as having accommodation (and therefore as not being homeless) if he has accommodation which, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (2B), it can reasonably consider that it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’
Lord Hoffmann also said: ‘there is nothing in the Act to say that a local authority cannot take the view that a person can reasonably be expected to continue to occupy accommodation which is temporary. . the extent to which the accommodation is physically suitable, so that it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy it, must be related to the time for which he has been there and is expected to stay. A local housing authority could take the view that a family like the Puhlhofers, put into a single cramped and squalid bedroom, can be expected to make do for a temporary period. On the other hand, there will come a time at which it is no longer reasonable to expect them to continue to occupy such accommodation. At this point they come back within the definition of homeless in section 58(1).’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-1995, Independent 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995, [1996] 1 AC 55, (1995) 27 HLR 453, [1995] 3 All ER 493, [1995] 3 WLR 215, [1995] UKHL 23, 93 LGR 581

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 58(1) 60(1) 65(2) 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua CA 31-Mar-1994
Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. . .
At first instanceRegina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .
DoubtedDin (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:

CitedKnight v Vale Royal Borough Council CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant challenged a decision of the authority that she had made herself intentionally homeless.She had gone to a refuge, then to stay with her mother. She had been found to be intentionally homeless. She then found a shorthold tenancy. When . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
AppliedRegina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Wingrove; Regina v Same Ex Parte Mansoor CA 7-Jun-1996
Accommodation provided by a local authority need not be permanent in order to satisfy the statutory requirement to assist somebody in need of assistance for homelessness. The full duty might be discharged by securing the offer of an assured . .
CitedGriffiths v St Helens Council CA 7-Mar-2006
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local . .
CitedSlater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
CitedHarouki 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 . .
CitedManchester 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 . .
CitedMuse v London Borough of Brent CA 19-Dec-2008
The court was asked whether the section 193 duty to provide housing was lost after the applicant had refused alternative temporary accommodation. The applicant had been granted temporary accommodation, but her family grew and it became too small. . .
CitedBirmingham 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 . .
CitedRavichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham CA 2-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons.
Held: The tenant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86187

O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 17 Apr 2001

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale.
Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: ‘The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one.’
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be ‘inescapable’ and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.

Judges:

Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 499, [2001] NPC 71, [2002] HLR 30, [2001] 16 EGCS 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne QBD 8-Jun-2000
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
CitedSnelling and Another v Burstow Parish Council ChD 24-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the application and interpretation of ancient statues relating to allotments. The land had been appropriated to allotments under the 1945 Act. The Council had argued that it had a power of sale under the 1908 Act subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85990

Rajah v Arogol Co Ltd: CA 13 Apr 2001

A tenant held a protected tenancy of one room in a house, but later extended his occupation to the entire floor.
Held: He did not thereby lose his status as protected tenant, and it did not operate as a surrender of the existing tenancy. The section protected the continuing tenancy because it referred to a grant of the tenancy by a person who was then a landlord.

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 454

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85657

Regina v Sacupima and Others, Ex Parte Newham London Borough Council: QBD 26 Nov 1999

A local authority decide to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants outside its area in assorted seaside towns, pending a final decision on their cases. This general policy was unlawful, since the authority had failed to consider properly the individual circumstances of the individuals involved. Many were on benefits, and had for example children being educated within the borough. The effect of the policy was to make any return to the borough impossible.

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-2000, [1999] EWHC 274 (QB), [2000] COD 133, (2001) 33 HLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others CA 1-Dec-2000
Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in . .
CitedNzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85470

Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

One of two joint tenants was able to give a notice to quit a joint periodic tenancy, without first referring to the co-tenant. If this was inappropriate, then it was for Parliament to change the law. Such a notice was not the exercise of a ‘function’ relating to the land within the Act, and accordingly there was no need to consult on the notice with the co-tenant. The notice simply served to indicate an unwillingness to withhold consent to the continuance of the tenancy, to allow a liability to continue to accrue. The words of the new Act were strikingly similar to the Act it replaced, and the concept of ‘function’ was not extended.

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 601, [2001] L and TR 34, (2001) 82 P and CR DG26, [2001] 35 EG 106, [2001] 18 EGCS 175, [2001] 3 EGLR 11, [2002] HLR 10, [2001] WTLR 1353

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNewlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another HL 29-Jul-1998
A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession . .

Cited by:

CitedSims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Trusts, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84370

Pemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark: CA 13 Apr 2000

A tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser after a possession order. She made regular payments but failed to comply with the order setting terms for suspension. She sought damages from the landlord for nuisance for not dealing with an infestation of cockroaches. The landlord authority asserted that she had insufficient interest to found a claim. She was not a tenant.
Held: Her continued occupation with the implicit consent of the authority, ‘the peculiar status of a ‘tolerated trespasser”, was sufficient to make her an occupier able to claim in nuisance.

Judges:

Roch LJ, Clarke LJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 128, [2000] 1 WLR 1672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
CitedWillis and Another v Derwentside District Council ChD 10-Apr-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging the escape of noxious CO2 gas from the defendant’s neighbouring land. The gas originated from old coal workings.
Held: There had come to be a liability falling in the defendant from 2006. Its delay in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84643

Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another: CA 14 Jun 2001

The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full ‘lawful presence’ in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary admission did not create a sufficient status by virtue of section 11.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2002] 34 HLR 1, [2001] EWCA Civ 677, [2001] EWCA Civ 677

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 185(2), Homelessness (England) Regulations 2000 (2000 No 701) 3(1)(e)(1), Immigration Act 1971 11(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .

Cited by:

CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
ConfirmedSzoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 30-Jul-2003
The applicant, a foreign national had been given temporary admission to the UK. He received income support. But this ceased after his asylum application was rejected, and he remained resident.
Held: The legislation now made specific reference . .
CitedSzoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Housing, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82689

Haringey London Borough Council v Jowett: QBD 27 Apr 1999

Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 365, [1999] 32 HLR 308

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Cited by:

CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81241

Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan: CA 31 Jan 1996

The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought issue of a warrant, and the tenant argued that a new possession was required, saying that the further agreement constituted the grant of a new tenancy or licence, and that this happened irrespective of anybody’s intentions.
Held: No new tenancy had been created, and no new possession order was required. It would be wrong to require the authority to apply to court each time a tenant under a suspended order was late in payment. The tenancy was determined when the conditions were breached. The authority might waive that breach, in which case situation continued as before. Whether the variation created a new tenancy was a question of fact. In this case the tenancy ended twice. The waivers by the authority did not determine the tenancy. Had he applied, the tenant would have been granted a postponment of the possession on the new agreement.
‘The tenancy continues until the date on which the tenant is ordered to give up possession. If the order is suspended on terms, the tenancy continues until there is a breach of those terms and then determines. The Local Authority is free to treat the tenant as a trespasser and to request the court to issue a warrant of execution. The tenant, on the other hand, is entitled to apply to the court to vary the terms of the order by postponing the date of possession. If it does so, the tenancy is reinstated and treated as if it had not determined.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 469, (1996) 72 P and CR 507

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
CitedReferral By the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission In the Cases of William Gray James Bernard O’Rourke v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Dec-2004
. .
CitedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

CitedSwindon Borough Council v Aston CA 19-Dec-2002
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession . .
CitedMarshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
AppliedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
CitedRichmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
CitedAustin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81015

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 material date was the date of the review. Where an applicant had been residing in interim accommodation pending the review, that occupation itself could become a sufficient local connection at the time when the review was complete. The authority’s error was fundamental and had prevented them asking the correct question. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Henry LJ, Potter LJ

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-2000, [2001] QB 97, [2000] EWCA Civ 7, [2000] 2 All ER 597, [2000] NPC 5, (2000) 32 HLR 481, [2000] 3 WLR 481

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Ealing London Borough Council Ex Parte Nicola Surdonja Admn 20-Oct-1998
The homeless applicant family were housed in two hostels approximately a mile apart.
Held: A housing authority’s duty to provide interim accommodation pending homelessness decision extended to the provision of suitable accommodation. There was . .
CitedRegina v Southwark London Borough Council ex parte Hughes 1983
Turner J said: ‘Housing is about the most basic social requirement of an individual. It is not conceptual, it is factual. The Housing Act is intended to be of social effect. It may be thought therefore that there are compelling reasons why the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic CA 2-Jan-1996
A refugee from Bosnia moved from Kirklees to London, where she applied for accomodation as being homeless. Hammersmith accepted that she was owed a duty, but referred her back to Kirklees in September. Her solicitors then sent in more material which . .
CitedRegina v Newham London Borough Council Ex Parte Smith QBD 11-Apr-1996
The local connection test for rehousing may be applied as at the date of the application for housing: ‘In my judgment a local authority may properly ask itself whether the applicant had a local connection . . at the date of the application under . .

Cited by:

CitedAl-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 . .
CitedCramp v Hastings Borough Council CA 29-Jul-2005
Cases challenged successful appeals by applicants for housing for homelessness, where a county court had ordered a second review of the application. . .
CitedSharif 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 . .
Appeal fromMohamed 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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80210

Cunningham v Birmingham City Council: Admn 6 May 1997

The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural problems. She said that the kitchen was, in view of his condition too small and dangerous in its layout.
Held: Whether premises are ‘prejudicial to health’ is an objective not a subjective test; there is no contrast with the test for nuisance. The magistrate had been wrong to determine the case in the way he did by relating the respondents’ duties to the particular health requirements of Robert, the son of the the appellant.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Astill J

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 440

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
CitedNational Coal Board v Thorne 2-Jan-1976
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken . .
CitedHall v The Manchester Corporation 1915
Lord Parker set out the test which to be applied when considering whether a property was fit for human habitation: ‘I desire to add that if the corporation are minded to make a new order under section 41 dealing with the houses in question, they . .
CitedMorgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79709

Coventry City Council v Finnie and Another: QBD 2 May 1996

No undertaking for damages was to be required of a Local Authority exercising a statutory duty. The grant of an injunction in favour of a local authority performing law enforcement duties did not necessarily carry with it a cross-undertaking on damages of a type that is familiar in private litigation.

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996, (1997) 29 HLR 658

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Cited by:

CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79576

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd v Pope: CA 6 Apr 2000

The tenant sought to assert that he occupied a houseboat, the Dinty Moore, under a tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the 1988 Act. The claimant appealed a decision that it was.
Held: A house-boat, even though used as a dwelling, did not have the character of a house sufficiently to allow an assured tenancy of it to arise. This could only happen if the boat itself became affixed to the land so as to become part of it. In this case the boat would float for several hours each day as the tide rose, and the boat could quite easily be moved to a different mooring. It was a chattel and was not inherently capable of becoming real property.

Judges:

Morritt LJ, Waller LJ, Tucker LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-2000, [2000] 22 EG 147, [2000] 1 WLR 1941, [2000] EWCA Civ 425

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHolland v Hodgson 1872
(Court of Exchequer Chamber) Blackburn J set out what constituted a fixture: ‘There is no doubt that the general maxim of the law is, that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with . .
CitedElitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Woodbury (Valuation Officer) and the Yard Arm Club Ltd CA 1-Nov-1992
A vessel, the Hispaniola was firmly fixed to moorings. The Council appealed a finding that it was exempt from inclusion in the rating list by the Act.
Held: The court found difficulty in the idea of lateral occupation by a chattel, or that . .
CitedCory v Bristow HL 1877
The owner of a vessel used for commercial purposes while fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as the occupier of those moorings and the part of the riverbed in which they were . .
CitedForrest v Overseers of Greenwich 1858
The court was asked whether a landing stage by a river was part of the land. F. moored a barge in the Thames between high and low water mark : the moorings wera stationary, in the bed of the river; and the barge floated at high water and grounded at . .
CitedStubbs v Hartnell CA 9-Jun-1997
The Court was asked whether a houseboat on the River Thames was subject to council tax. . .

Cited by:

CitedMalekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79005

British Waterways Board v Norman: QBD 11 Nov 1993

A solicitor cannot claim payment from the other party of costs he would not ask his own client to pay. An implied contingency agreement with his client could defeat a claim for payment of costs from the other party. There was never any intention on the part of the solicitors to create any liability for their own costs if the proceedings failed. It therefore followed that they sought to conduct the case on a contingency basis, such basis being contrary to public policy in any criminal trial such as this.

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Nov-1993, Times 11-Nov-1993, [1993] 22 HLR 232

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78651

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Tinn: 1988

Citations:

(1988) 20 HLR 205

Cited by:

CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566157

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 they lived in temporary accommodation in Bramley. The marriage then broke down as a result of the husband’s behaviour, and the applicant left the Bramley accommodation and applied for accommodation as a homeless person.
Held: Taylor J, relying on Lord Fraser’s acceptance in Din of the need for a continuing causal connection, held that the applicant had not become homeless intentionally. Her homelessness was not due to her having given up the secure accommodation in Basingstoke and moved into unsettled accommodation: it was due to the break-up of her marriage.

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

(1983) 10 HLR 125

Citing:

ApprovedDin (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:

CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566158

Regina v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Fahia: 1996

After deliberately losing her tenancy, the authority had provided the appliant with temporary accomodation in a guest house, but after her housing benefits were halved she lost that accomodation also.
Held: The authority had a duty to house her. The change in the level of housing benefits had operated to break the chain of causation, and she was no longer voluntarily homeless.
An example of the causal connection being interrupted, other than by a period in settled accommodation, would be if the applicant’s accommodation in the guest house had been burned down; or if, in Dyson’s case, the let of the cottage had been brought prematurely to an end by the cottage being destroyed by fire. As the judge observed, Dyson’s case had been decided as it was because, when the let came to an end, the fact that Miss Dyson was thereafter homeless was caused by her initial conduct. If, on the other hand, somebody went into a property for a three month period but lost it after 14 days because the premises were burnt down, then in the judge’s view, applying the ordinary common sense test of causation, one would say that the cause of the homelessness was the fire. The judge considered Ex p Bassett to be another illustration of the same principle.

Judges:

Roger Toulson QC, DJ

Citations:

(1996) 29 HLR 94

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Fahia CA 7-Mar-1997
The applicant had been found to have deliberately procured her own eviction from her tenanted accommodation in Harrow. She was given temporary accommodation in a guest house, where she stayed for over a year. Her housing benefit was then reduced by . .
At First InstanceRegina v Harrow London Borough Council Ex Parte Fahia HL 16-Sep-1998
The local authority submitted first that a person making a second application for emergency housing had to demonstrate a change of circumstance which might lead to a second application being successful and second that it was for the local authority . .
CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566159

Walker v Ogilvy: CA 1974

A tenant of a flat which he used principally at weekends and for short holidays. The tenant had another permanent residence.
Held: Parliament in passing the Rent Act 1968 never intended to protect people in occupation of what were in effect holiday houses.

Judges:

Ormrod LJ

Citations:

(1974) 29 P and CR 288

Statutes:

Rent Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedZH 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.554543

Regalian Securities Ltd v Scheuer: CA 1982

The court considered the right of a protected tenant to become a statutory tenant on the termination of his protected tenancy under section 2(1)(a) of the 1977 Act, requiring him to occupy the dwelling house ‘as his residence’. The tenant occupied the flat as a temporary expedient for part of the time when the house, which his wife had purchased and in which they and their children lived, was let to others during the winter.
Held: His residence in the flat did not have the quality needed to attract the protections of the Rent Acts.
Cumming-Bruce LJ asked whether the second residence was used as a home rather than a place of convenient resort.home. Cumming-Bruce LJ set out two principles that were relevant in that context: ‘First, the court enquires what is the extent and what are the characteristics of the user of the residence? When that is ascertained the court also enquires: Is the nature of the residence during the period that it persisted the kind of residence that is within the contemplation of the Rent Act? Is this the kind of residence that Parliament intended should clothe the tenant with the right to claim statutory protection?’
May LJ took a similar approach, asking whether there was occupation as a home.

Judges:

Cumming-Bruce LJ, Eveleigh LJ, May LJ

Citations:

(1982) 5 HLR 48

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 2(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedZH 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.554544

Dyson v Kerrier District Council: CA 1980

Miss Dyson gave up her flat in Huntingdon and went to live in Cornwall. But the only accommodation which she had arranged for herself was a three month winter let of a cottage in Helston. She knew that the tenancy was not protected and that she would have to leave. When she was finally evicted, she applied to the local council for accommodation on the ground that she was now homeless. The council said that she was intentionally homeless because she had given up the Huntingdon flat knowing that after the expiry of the winter let she would have nowhere to live. She argued that was concerned only with the accommodation one had been occupying at the time when one became homeless. This was the cottage in Cornwall and it was not reasonable to expect her to continue to occupy that accommodation because the court had ordered her to leave it.
Held: Such a construction would enable people to jump the housing queues by making themselves intentionally homeless at one remove. They would only have to move into temporary accommodation and wait until evicted. The Court therefore held that one was not confined to asking whether it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy the cottage in Cornwall. If it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy the flat in Huntingdon and there was a causal link between deliberately leaving that flat and her subsequent homelessness in Cornwall, then she was intentionally homeless.

Judges:

Brightman LJ

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 1205, [1980] 3 All ER 313

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.443223

Mohram Ali v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 27 May 1992

A challenge to the exercise of homelessness duties by a local authority must be by way of Judicial Review. Nolan LJ: ‘It follows that in my judgment the public law duties of the council were not discharged until they had completed the process of deciding on the suitable accommodation which they were obliged to secure for the plaintiff. If this process was properly carried out as a matter of public law, then the consequential private law right of the plaintiff was simply a right to the accommodation which the council had decided to be suitable.’

Judges:

Nolan LJ

Citations:

Gazette 27-May-1992, [1993] QB 407, (1992) 24 HLR 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDesnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
CitedMohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77734

Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2000

The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. After the grant of the tenancy, the Association had changed in status from being fully mutual.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. A tenancy from a mutual housing association created in 1985 was neither protected nor secure, and the Housing Act 1985 did not alter that status. However the later Act did operate, when the association converted from its mutual status, to change the tenancy to a secure tenancy, and that in turn gave the tenant a right to buy. The conversion led to the ‘landlord condition’ becoming fulfilled.
Jonathan Parker LJ said: ‘paragraph 4(a) in my judgment provides a saving for existing tenancies in respect of which, immediately prior to the commencement date, the ‘landlord condition’ was satisfied (so that they were secure tenancies), but in respect of which the ‘landlord condition’ would otherwise have ceased to be satisfied as from the commencement date, by virtue of the repeals: e.g. a tenancy where the landlord immediately before the commencement date was a non-mutual association. The saving is achieved not by providing that such tenancies shall continue as secure tenancies until such time as the non-mutual association disposes of its interest to an authority or body which is not included in the amended list, for that would be inconsistent with the ‘ambulatory’ nature of the statutory code. Rather, the saving is achieved by preserving the unamended ‘landlord condition’ in relation to such a tenancy, so that it will be a secure tenancy at any time in the future when the interest of the landlord belongs to an authority or body within the unamended section 80 (e.g. a non-mutual association).’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 276, [2001] 2 All ER 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Housing Act 1988 sch18 p4(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBasingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice CA 3-Apr-1995
A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. Section 79 of the 1985 Act had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: ‘The use of the term ‘at any time’ in section . .

Cited by:

CitedSouthward Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Walker and Another ChD 8-Jun-2015
The court was asked as to the nature and effect of tenancies for life granted by fully mutual housing co-operatives and in particular how they can lawfully be brought to an end and a possession order obtained. The tenants sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77729

Regina v Waveney District Council ex parte Bowers: 25 May 1982

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that he was not homeless under section 1 of the Act. For 15 months he had been using a night shelter in Lowestoft. It was an unheated dormitory in a derelict building. It was empty and closed between 8:00am and 8:00pm each day. If on any evening he presented himself at the shelter at or after 8:00pm, he was offered a bed, unless it was already full, in which case he was turned away.
Held: The housing authority’s decision that he had accommodation at the shelter was irrational.

Judges:

Stephen Brown J

Citations:

Times 25-May-1982

Statutes:

Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

Cited by:

Reversed in partRegina 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 . .
CitedManchester 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 . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266980

Kelly v Monklands District Council: 1986

A local authority’s housing duties may be owed to a child if that child is living independently of its parents.

Citations:

1986 SLT 169

Cited by:

CitedRoyal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Housing, Children, Local Government

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259630

Yumsak v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 2002

The court will not readily interfere with the approach of a housing authority to the question of suitability, although in an appropriate case it plainly will.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 280 Admin, [2003] HLR 1

Cited by:

CitedCalgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
CitedNzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.234545

Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council: CA 1987

The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order described as ‘the current rent’. The wife defaulted on the terms and left the premises, leaving the husband in occupation. The landlord obtained a warrant for possession against the wife. The husband applied to be added as a defendant in the possession proceedings, so as to be able in the matrimonial proceedings to apply for the transfer of the tenancy to him. The possession order was suspended in these terms: ‘judgment for possession shall not be enforced for 28 days in any event, and for so long thereafter as the defendant punctually pays the arrears in addition to the current rent.’
Held: A tenant holding over under a suspended possession order becomes at best a tolerated trespasser if he then breaches the terms of the suspension. The tenancy terminates automatically and at the moment of breach of the conditions.
Russell LJ said: ‘It is to be observed that on the face of the order it does not purport to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy, in my judgment, plainly continues and is recognised by the order as continuing. The judgment for possession, however, is suspended so long as the current rent is paid in addition to the arrears. If that were not the true interpretation of the order, then plainly the words ‘the current rent’ to which I have adverted, would not appear.’ and
‘In my judgment, once the defendant in proceedings of this kind where there is a suspended order for possession, ceases to comply with the conditions of the order, namely, ‘the punctual payment of the current rent and arrears,’ and there is a breach of the terms of the order, the tenancy, whatever it may be, from that moment comes to an end.’
He then considered Sherrin’s case: ‘What I think is more important, and indeed crucial, is that Sherrin’s case was dealing with an entirely different code of legislation, namely, the Rent Acts, to that with which this case is concerned, namely, the Housing Act 1985. And, in particular, in the instant case, the court has the advantage of the statutory provision, to which I referred earlier, namely section 82(2) which seeks to define the date when a tenancy is to come to an end. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this court is free to distinguish Sherrin v Brand both on the facts and on the law. Indeed the case is an illustration of how dangerous it can be to rely on judgments delivered where the statutory structure is different from that with which this court is concerned. I repeat section 82(2) provides:
Where the landlord obtains an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, the tenancy ends on the date on which the tenant it to give up possession in pursuance of the order.
I return to the terms of the order, which provide:
judgment for possession shall not be enforced for 28 days in any event, and for so long thereafter as the defendant punctually pays . . .the arrears . . in addition to the current rent.
In my judgment, once the defendant in proceedings of this kind where there is a suspended order for possession, ceases to comply with the conditions of the order, namely, ‘the punctual payment of the current rent and arrears’, and there is a breach of the terms of the order, the tenancy, whatever it may be, from that moment comes to an end.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Russell, Sir Denys Buckley

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 1425, (1987) 19 HLR 526

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 82(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedSherrin v Brand CA 1956
The landlord had obtained a possession order against his secure tenant. The order was suspended, but the landlord then failed to enforce the order after the date and when the tenant had failed to comply with the terms of the suspension. The tenant . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
CitedRichmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
CitedMarshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
CitedPemberton v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark CA 13-Apr-2000
A tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser after a possession order. She made regular payments but failed to comply with the order setting terms for suspension. She sought damages from the landlord for nuisance for not dealing . .
CitedHarlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
CitedBristol 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.
CitedWhite v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
CitedSecretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
ConfirmedAustin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.226029

Regina v Croydon London Borough Council, ex parte Graham: CA 1993

The very existence of material gaps in the reasons accompanying a decision may have rendered that decision unlawful.

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

(1993) 26 HLR 286

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOxfordshire County Council v GB and Others CA 22-Aug-2001
When an appeal was lodged against the decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, it was wrong for that Tribunal later to expand on its reasons, save in exceptional circumstances. Parental preference was not an overriding consideration, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224963

ex parte Carroll: 1988

The applicant for housing was said to have suffered ‘a major and irreversible handicap’ as a result of a childhood injury but who also was in the habit of drinking six or seven pints of beer a day.
Held: The court accepted the submission ‘that the effect of that gloss upon the section is in practice to extend the meaning given to the word ‘vulnerable’ by Waller LJ as if it reads ‘less able to fend for oneself when homeless or in finding and keeping accommodation’.’

Judges:

Webster J

Citations:

[1988] 20 HLR 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Citedex parte Sangeramano 1985
When consideriung whether an applicant for housing was vulnerable, ‘The vulnerability to be considered is vulnerability loosely in housing terms or in the context of housing.’ . .
Citedex parte Banbury 1987
. .

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200290

Morrow v Nadeem: 1981

In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was invalid. It was a form preescribed by the rules requiring the correct identification of the landlord. The court considered also the effect of the omission to inform a proposed lessee about what would happen on a reference to a rent assessment committee on the substitution of council tax for poll tax. It would be a source of confusion rather than an evident error.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1381

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25, Landlord & Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 (SI 1957/1157),

Cited by:

CitedAndrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
CitedPearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
CitedLay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187736

Campden Hill Towers v Gardner: CA 1977

A flat was let by an underlease for seven years. The lease excluded the outside walls of the flat, but the tenant covenanted to pay for repairs to the building through a service charge. The tenant refused to pay the service charge which included the costs of repairing a neighbouring block also (included within the definition of the premises by the underlease).
Held: The court will ask whether, in the ordinary use of words, the part of the house at issue would be regarded as structure and exterior. In this case that included the outside walls, the outside of interior party walls, the outer sides of the horizontal divisions between the flat and the flats above and below, and the structural framework and beams directly supporting the floors, ceilings and walls. The landlord could only recover for those items which it was obliged to repair, namely the external parts of the flat within the underlease, and could not recover the cost of repairing those parts it was obliged to repair in any event under the section.
Megaw LJ said: ‘[a]nything which, in the ordinary use of words, would be regarded as a part of the structure, or of the exterior, of the particular ‘dwelling house’ [sc the third floor flat], regarded as a separate part of the building, would be within the scope of paragraph (a).’, although ‘other parts of the outside walls and other parts of the structure of the block’ are ‘not ‘of the dwelling house’, and the paragraph expressly and deliberately uses the limiting words, as defined in the section itself, relating the paragraph to ‘the dwelling house”.

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1977] 2 WLR 159, [1977] QB 823

Statutes:

Housing Act 1961 32(1)(a) 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedIrvine v Moran 1991
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .
CitedWycombe Health Authority v Barnett CA 1982
A student tenant left the property for a few days. Whilst she was away, the pipes froze, cracked, and then burst. The landlord complained that he had neither turned off the water, nor lagged the pipes.
Held: The tenant had no such obligation . .
CitedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187656

Morris v London Borough of Newham: Admn 2002

The claimant complained that the defendant authority had failed to provide her and her family with suitable accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 193. Breach of duty was conceded. The relief sought by the claimant included damages for breach of Article 8.
Held: ‘Absent special circumstances which interfere with private or family life, a homeless person cannot rely upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 in order to found a damages claim for failure to provide accommodation’. Although the defendant’s breach of duty had compelled the claimant and her family to live in ‘grossly overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation’ for a period of 29 weeks, this did not infringe Article 8.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1262 Admin

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 193, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAnufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
CitedRegina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Admn 25-Oct-2002
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186968

Heslop v Burns: CA 1974

The defendants had lived in a house rent free for a long period. After the owner died, his executors sought possession saying the defendants were mere licencees. The defendants claimed a tenancy at will, and that the right now asserted was statute barred.
Held: There was no agreement, and no evidence of an intention to create a tenancy. The act of allowing them into possession was merely an act of bounty, and a licence only was created. Courts should nowadays be less inclined to find a tenancy at will.
The possession of a licensee can never be adverse.

Judges:

Stamp, Roskill, and Scarman LJJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 1241, [1974] 3 All ER 406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedFacchini v Bryson 1952
The court held that in all the reported cases where it was held that an agreement was a licence rather than a tenancy: ‘In all the cases where an occupier has been held to be a licensee there has been something in the circumstances, such as a family . .

Cited by:

CitedGoomti Ramnarace v Harrypersad Lutchman PC 21-May-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant had gone into possession of land by consent, and many years later declined to leave. The claimant said the period of her adverse possession was insufficient but she claimed a tenancy. The claimant asserted that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183130

Simmons v Pizzey: HL 1979

As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the Oxford Dictionary and the Words and Phrases definitions of the term ‘household’, he concluded: ‘I do not find any of these references particularly helpful except to make clear to me that I would have supposed in any case that both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive.’

Judges:

Lord Hailsham

Citations:

[1979] AC 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council and another CA 25-Jun-2002
A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3.
Held: Nothing in the . .
CitedHossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimant lived near houses used for the occupation by troubled youths. She complained that the occupation was in breach of planning control.
Held: The authority had properly considered the issues it was required to consider and the . .
AppliedLondon Borough of Hackney v Ezedinma QBD 1981
The house had rooms let for students in the basement and on the ground, first and second floors, with kitchens on the top three floors to serve the rooms. Five rooms had been let when the authority issued a notice under section 19(1) to restrict the . .
CitedRegina v Birmingham Juvenile Court Ex Parte S 1984
The court considered what was meant by the term ‘household’: ‘at the heart of the concept it is the persons who comprise the household . . and not the place where the household is located as a matter of residence.’ . .
CitedRichards v The Legal Services Commission Admn 19-Jul-2006
The claimant challenged the inclusion in her gross income for calculation of her eligibility to legal aid of maintenance payments received for her children who were both at University. She said that since she had responsibility for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182286

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 IRA had threatened that they would all be killed unless they left Northern Ireland within 72 hours. The council concluded that all the applicants were homeless intentionally, primarily on the ground that they had ceased to occupy their homes in consequence of deliberate acts, namely their continued misbehaviour after warnings by or on behalf of neighbours.
Held: The council’s decision was confirmed. The question was one of causation; the section makes no mention of foreseeability but where the immediate cause of the departure (namely the IRA threat) was foreseeable, then it was easier to say that the bad behaviour was the cause of the homelessness and it was less easy to say that the homelessness was caused by a new intervening act. The court rejected the submission that it should, as a matter of public policy, refrain from making the applicants responsible for the acts of vigilantes.

Judges:

Schiemann J

Citations:

(1989) 22 HLR 21

Citing:

ApprovedDevenport 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 by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedHaile 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181073

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 than six years after the work had been concluded. The authority argued that it was not more than six years from when it had served the notices demanding payment.
Held: The notices were not the cause of action, but only a condition precedent to bringing an action. Accordingly time ran from the conclusion of the works, and the claim was out of time.
Taylor LJ said: ‘Section 10(4) provides expressly that where the local authority opts to take summary proceedings to recover their expenses, the limitation period runs from the date of service of the demand or, if there is an appeal, the date when the demand becomes operative. Again, by implication, since no such provision is applied to proceedings in the High Court or County Court, time in those proceedings does not run from the date when the demand is served or becomes operative. It will run from the accrual of the cause of action which, ex hypothesi, is a different time.
The rationale of the distinction between summary and other proceedings probably lies in the respective limitation periods. In summary proceedings the period is six months. If time were to run from the accrual of the cause of action, i.e. when the expenses were incurred, summary proceedings might often be statute-barred before they could be brought, especially where there was an appeal against the demand. In other proceedings, however, the limitation period of six years gives, or should give, the local authority ample time to sue even after an appeal against their demand. In my judgment, the expression, special to section 10(4), that time runs from service of the demand or when it becomes operative, is intended to distinguish summary proceedings from other proceedings. Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius. In other proceedings, time runs from the accrual of the cause of action, i.e. when the four elements identified above are complete. Thus, I conclude that the requirement to serve a demand is a procedural condition precedent to bringing proceedings. It is not part of the cause of action.
I am fortified in this view by consideration of what could result if the local authority were right. Upon their argument, the local authority could delay service of a demand indefinitely. Then, having served their demand long after the works were complete, they would have a further six years in which to take proceedings in the High Court or the county court.’
Taylor LJ also noted that: ”Although not on all fours with the present case, these decisions show that a cause of action may well accrue before, for procedural reasons, the plaintiff can bring proceedings. Where the cause of action arises from statute, the question as to what is merely procedural and what is an ‘inherent element’ in the cause of action is one of construction.’ It is a question of construction of the relevant instrument, whether statute, regulations, rules or contract, in each case as to whether there is such a difference.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 QB 844, [1992] CLY 2828, [1992] 2 All ER 680, [1992] 3 WLR 123

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 10(4), Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCoburn v Colledge CA 1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
CitedCentral Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation HL 1963
Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether . .
CitedSevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .

Cited by:

CitedThe Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust ChD 13-Jun-2001
The authority had served notices on the second defendant, requiring him to execute works to bring a property up to a habitable condition. Eventually the authority executed the works themselves, and sought repayment from him of the costs. He resisted . .
CitedLegal Services Commission v Henthorn CA 30-Nov-2011
The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedHillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd ChD 12-Jun-1997
The Council had taken possession of the company’s land under compulsory purchase powers, but the company delayed its claim for compensation, and the Council now said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was indeed time barred. The . .
CitedRoyal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
CitedRoyal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another CA 16-Jan-2002
. .
CitedHowe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau QBD 22-Mar-2016
The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident in France caused by a wheel spinning from a still unidentified lorry.
Held: Rejected . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.180520

Regina (Khan) v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 4 Oct 2002

The applicant sought review of the authority’s decision not to offer her housing. She was subject to immigration control. She had been the victim of domestic violence and of abduction.
Held: The authority could provide assistance under either Act, unless prohibited by statute. The limitation in the 1948 statute did apply to restrict the authority’s decision under the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances the decision not to provide assistance was unreasonable, and review was granted.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 04-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Immigration, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177845

Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 9 Oct 2001

When assessing whether a gypsy should be granted planning permission to park his caravan on a site, the authority could not take into account the fact that he had earlier refused an offer of permanent housing, where acceptance of that offer would have been contrary to the applicant’s traditional way of life. The appellant and his family were Romanies who lead a nomadic way of life. The Inspector should consider whether: he lived in a caravan; he was a Romany; he was nomadic for a substantial part of the year; the itinerancy was linked to his livelihood; and he had an aversion to conventional housing.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 and 14, Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Human Rights, Housing, Planning

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.166861

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.

Citations:

(1994) LAGB June 11

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 34(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedArogol Company Ltd v Rajah CA 21-Mar-2001
Defendant’s appeal from an order granting the claimant a possession order in respect of a ground floor flat. The basic question in the proceedings was whether the defendant had a tenancy protected under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.614931

Regina v Hackney London Borough Council, Ex parte Ajayi: 1997

Ms A had left settled accommodation in Nigeria to come to the United Kingdom, where she lived in overcrowded short-term accommodation. She was given notice to leave after she became pregnant. She challenged the authority’s decision that she had become homeless intentionally as a result of having left the accommodation in Nigeria, and argued that the true cause of her homelessness was her pregnancy.
Held: Dyson J stated that the fundamental question was whether there was a continuous chain of causation between the loss of the last settled accommodation and the present state of homelessness, adding: 2In some cases, the cause closest in point of time will be regarded as the effective cause. A good example of this might well be the case discussed in Ex p Fahia (1996) 29 HLR 94, 102, of the premises occupied on a short letting which are burnt down, thereby rendering the occupant homeless.’ In the particular circumstances of the case, the authority had been entitled, in the judge’s view, to decide that the effective cause of the applicant’s homelessness was her action in leaving Nigeria.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

(1997) 30 HLR 473

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHaile 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.566160

Regina v London Borough of Brent, ex parte Blatt: QBD 1991

The applicant was the respondent’s secure tenant. The respondent decided to change its tenancy agreement, by including a list of items of repair for which it would be responsible and a procedure by which it could vary the terms of the agreement. In a further clause the respondent agreed that no variation might be made to the agreement which either reduced the respondent’s repair obligations or made them more difficult to enforce or which reduced the tenant’s security of tenure under the agreement. The respondent later decided to remove the list of its repair obligations from the agreement, to remove the contractual security of tenure provisions and to replace them with the grounds provided by the Act and to remove the variation clause, including clause 8(b). The tenant sought judicial review.
Held: Section 102 of the Act gave power to the respondent to vary the terms of a secure tenancy; clause 8(b) was itself a term of the tenancy and so could itself be varied by deletion pursuant to statutory procedure. It was a matter of construction of the statute.
Leggatt LJ: ‘Mr. Watkinson argues that it was open to the Council to agree not to exercise the power given by section 103. He says that that is what the council did in 1981 as a result of negotiations with the tenants’ associations. He submits that the effect of including clause 8(b) in the old Agreement was to preclude the Council thereafter from varying the standard form by reducing the security of tenure of tenants under the Agreement. The respondents, therefore, cannot now reduce the quality of the security, as they have purported to do in the fashion complained of under the applicant’s first argument. Attractive though the argument is, especially since that is what the average tenant might expect the position to be, it cannot, in my judgment, prevail over the language of the statute. Section 102 gives power to the Council to vary the terms of a secure tenancy by Agreement with the tenants, or alternatively, in accordance with section 103 by giving notice of variation of a periodic tenancy following compliance with the statutory arrangements for a preliminary notice. In that way the respondents can in effect vary the terms of the tenancy unilaterally. Clause 8(b) is itself a term of the tenancy, so it can be varied by deletion. It does not, after all, contain or constitute a promise that it will not itself be revoked. In truth, however, as I have earlier indicated, this represents no substantial diminution in the tenants’ rights. Their basic protection is afforded by the statute, and such embellishments of that protection as were brought about by contract, would, if enforceable, only have been of value in the event that the statutory protection was itself reduced in future . . .’
Owen J: ‘. . . I would only add that whilst not finding that it is possible I am far from convinced that it would be impossible for a local authority to contract out the powers given by sections 102 and 103 of the Housing Act 1985. However, if such a contracting out is possible, then it would need to be both clear and explicit. I am satisfied there was no such contracting out here. Once that conclusion is accepted, then the changes intended to be made by the proposed Tenancy Agreement do not provide a sufficient Basis for the application made here. . .’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Owen J

Citations:

(1991) 24 HLR 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNorth British Housing Association Ltd v Sheridan CA 29-Jul-1999
The respondent appealed against an order for possession made on the grounds that he had been convicted of breach of an order under the 1997 Act in harassing his daughter who lived nearby the premises. The tenant argued that the agreement had . .
CitedKilby v Basildon District Council Admn 26-Jul-2006
Tenants complained that the authority landlord had purported to vary a clause in his secure tenancy agreement which gave certain management rights to tenants.
Held: The powers to let on secure tenancies were governed by statute. The clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.221434

Remmington v Larchin: CA 1921

The word ‘person’ in the Act, was interpreted to mean ‘landlord’. When dealing with a penal section, if there are two reasonably possible meanings, the court should adopt the more lenient one: ‘where an equivocal word or ambiguous sentence leaves a reasonable doubt of its meaning which the canons of interpretation fail to solve, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the subject and against the legislature which has failed to explain itself’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1921] 3 KB 404

Statutes:

Rent Act 1920 8(1)

Cited by:

CitedFarrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.539432

Fox v Dalby: 1874

A militia sergeant occupied a house built expressly for accommodation of persons looking after the stores and which had been assigned to him by his commanding officer.
Held: The sergeant did not occupy the house as a tenant. Brett J said: ‘where a person situate like the respondent is permitted . . to occupy premises by way of reward for his services, or as part payment, the occupation is that of tenant; but that, where he is required to occupy them for the better performance of his duties, though his residence there is not necessary for that purpose, or, if his residence there be necessary for the performance of his duties though not specifically required, his occupation is not that of tenant’

Judges:

Brett J, Lord Coleridge CJ

Citations:

(1874) LR 10 CP 285

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWragg and others v Surrey County Council CA 1-Feb-2008
The Council appealed against declarations given that the respondent tenants (wildlife rangers) were entitled to purchase the freehold of their homes under right-to-buy. The Council said that the tenancies were occupied in connection with their . .
AppliedGlasgow Corporation v Johnstone and Others (orse Johnstons) HL 1965
A house lived in by a church officer was occupied for rating purposes by the church’s congregational board which employed him, and so was not liable for full rates. Lord Hodson said: ‘The distinction is usually shortly stated in this way: if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.536729

Shreeve v Hallam: CA 1950

Sir Raymond Evershed MR considered what a judge had to look at when making a possession order: ‘In such matters the judge was not to consider whether it was reasonable for the landlord to claim possession, but whether it was reasonable to make an order.’

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR

Citations:

[1950] WN 140

Cited by:

CitedWhitehouse 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, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.344010

Regina v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick and similar: HL 19 Mar 1993

No homelessness priority could be established by means of having a child applying for housing, rather than his or her parent. An application by a person suffering mental disability who would also be dependent upon others was also rejected. In each case the true application was by the parent or carer. The Act is concerned with the provision of housing, not social services’ care. A parent or carer would be given priority under the later section by virtue of that care. The authorities’ duties under Part III of the 1985 Act were not owed to dependent children.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘Dependent children are not amongst those classified as in priority need.
Dependent children depend upon their parents or those looking after them to decide where they are to live and the offer of accommodation can only sensibly be made to those in charge of them.
Such a child is in my opinion owed no duty under this Act for it is the intention of the Act that the child’s accommodation will be provided by the parents or those looking after him and it is to those people that the offer of accommodation must be made.
If a family has lost its right to priority treatment through intentional homelessness the parent cannot achieve the same result through the back door by an application in the name of a dependent child.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1993, Independent 19-Mar-1993, [1993] 2 All ER 65, [1993] 2 WLR 609, [1993] AC 509

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 59(1) 59(1)(c)

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRoyal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
CitedHotak 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, Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87493

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

Citing:

Appealed toRegina 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 fromRegina 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: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88205

Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Ch (HB) (Housing and Council Tax Benefits – Liability, Commerciality and Contrivance): UTAA 28 Jul 2020

Housing benefit – Commerciality – Regulation 9(1)(a) and (2) – ‘Trump-card facts’ and the ‘notional commercial landlord’. Housing benefit – Commerciality – Regulation 9(1)(a) and (2)-Whether a tenancy that is on a commercial basis can subsequently become non-commercial, and vice versa. Housing benefit – Commerciality – Regulation 9(1)(a) and (2) – Whether subsequent conduct by the parties to a tenancy that does not change the terms of what has been agreed between them (and in particular forbearance by a landlord in the enforcement of rent arrears) can have the effect that a previously commercial tenancy becomes uncommercial

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 240 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.656572

Haniff v Robinson: 1992

The only way that a landlord may properly secure possession of property subject to a statutory tenancy against the wishes of the tenant is by first obtaining a possession order and then by executing a warrant for possession.

Citations:

[1992] 3 WLR 875

Housing

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.260333

London City Properties Ltd v Goodman: 1978

The landlord sought to recover possession of the property subject to a protected tenancy on the basis that suitable alternative accomodation was available.
Held: The tenant’s own other property could be a possible suitable alternative.

Citations:

Unreported, 01-Jan-78

Housing

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.260330

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

Housing

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.246042