Category: Housing

Di Palma v United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Dec 1986

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council SC 12-Nov-2014
Surrender at Common Law Survives Human Rights Law
The tenants held a secure weekly tenancy of the respondent under a joint tenancy. After a relationship breakdown, Mrs Sims had given notice to quit. Mr Sims, left in possession now argued that the common law rules should not be allowed to deprive . .
Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185438

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

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 886 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Local Government, Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185570

K v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 31 Jul 2003

The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing assistance pending decision on her removal. The authority refused assistance on the basis that she was wife of an EU national, but she was to be removed because that marriage was not genuine.
Held: An asylum seeker is not to be equated with a foreign national seeking to establish a right of residence. Having abandoned the asylum aplication, the court could not make an decision assuming she could not return to her country of origin. Strasbourg jurisprudence does not require a claimant, seeking entry for family reasons, to be permitted to enter, or to remain here on public support, pending the resolution of her disputed claim. She had in the past demonstrated the ability to support herself, and the judge’s finding that she might do so again was not irrational.

Judges:

Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Mar-2003
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Benefits, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184925

Parker v Parker: ChD 24 Jul 2003

Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA 22-Jul-2002
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Cited – Pascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
Cited – Inwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Griffiths v Williams CA 1978
The claimant had been told she could live in a house for her life. On that assurance she improved the house.
Held: She had raised an equity, but how could it be satisfied? The court declined to order the grant of a life interest because it . .
Cited – Watson v Goldsborough CA 1986
The representative of an angling club sent the owner of the land a draft lease. The owner agreed that the club could have a lease, and in reliance on that assurance the club improved the land.
Held: An equity had been established and that it . .
Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
Cited – Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
Cited – Orgee v Orgee CA 5-Nov-1997
The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as . .
Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Cited – Willis v Hoare 1999
Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
Cited – New Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC 1963
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – J J Harrison v Harrison 2002
A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Sopwith v Stuchbury 1983
The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent . .
Cited – Isaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd 1960
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Gibson v Douglas and Another CA 8-Dec-2016
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185053

Regina 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 the tenant refers the notice to a rent assessment committee under 13(4). Does the word ‘refer’ refer to the receipt of a notice, or does it include it having been posted. If not the latter, should the provision be read down under the Human Rights Act 1988.
Held: The question is not a true access to justice question since the tenant was not exercising a right until the procedure was implemented. The word had to be given its ordinary meaning unsupported by reference to the Form used. It means here that it must be received by the Rent Assessment Committee. The Form itself should be amended.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 319, Times 25-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13(4), Human Rights Act 1998 3, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 194)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Miragall Escolano And Others v Spain (Article 41) ECHR 25-May-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (arrangement) 38366/97; 38688/97; 40777/98; 40843/98; 41015/98; 41400/98; 41446/98; 41484/98; 41487/98; 41509/98 . .
Cited – Perez De Rada Cavanilles v Spain ECHR 28-Oct-1998
ECHR Inadmissibility, for being out of time, of reposicion application against court decision whereby a settlement agreement which the applicant had sought to enforce had been declared void
In a dispute . .
Cited – Nash v Ryan Plant International Limited 1977
The court considered the meaning of the word ‘refer’ in the section.
Held: Words such as ‘deliver’ or ‘present’ ordinarily require that the transfer shall be completed. Words like ‘send’ or ‘despatch’ do not. The argument on the word . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179743

Al-Ameri, Osmani v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/London Borough of Harrow: CA 28 Feb 2003

The applicants sought to assert a local connection, having been housed in the respondent’s areas as destitute asylum seekers.
Held: The accomodation was not one of the applicant’s choice, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish a local connection under the Act. The respondent’s decision to refer the applicants back to authorities in which they had had such accomodation was flawed because of the absence of that connection. The provision of interim accomodation by a local authority, which could establish such a connection, was not on a par because of the absence of choice. (Buxton LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 235, Times 19-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 97(2)(a), Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179557

Swindon 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 under the new tenancy agreement. The tenant appealed a finding that he no longer enjoyed the original secure tenancy.
Held: After the original breach, the tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser. However the continued occupation could not be referred to the tolerance of his occupation, and had to be characterized as a tenancy. All the arrears had been paid off so the order ceased to be enforceable. The later tenancy agreement could not alter that situation.

Judges:

Schiemann and Jonathan Parker LJJ, Pumfrey J

Citations:

Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1850, [2003] HLR 610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marshall 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 . .
Cited – Burrows 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell CA 19-Apr-2007
The landlord had obtained an order for possession based upon the secure tenant’s failure to pay rent. The order had been suspended. The tenant again fell into arrears, and the landlord chose to issue new proceedings rather than revive the old.
Cited – Knowsley 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178849

MC v Italy: ECHR 19 Dec 2002

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had terminated a residential lease in 1990. Enforcement of possession orders was not effective because no police assistance was given. She sold the flat in 1996. She now complained that the lack of ways of enforcing the orders for possession interfered with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1.
Held: The delay was unreasonable. In the absence of evidence as to pecuniary losses, the court assumed there must be some losses and assessed them equitably at 3,000 Euros comparable with Bottazzi.

Citations:

32391/96, [2002] ECHR 837

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights P1-A1

Citing:

Cited – Bottazzi v Italy ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing, Damages

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178583

Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another: Admn 19 Nov 2002

The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, since many gypsies did not now seek a roving life.
Held: The onus of justifying an interference in the applicant’s human rights lay on the authorities. However, other arrangements did exist for those who wanted a more settled life. The earlier position remained appropriate. The different treatment of the applicants was justified in the pursuance of a legitimate aim.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2400 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part 1, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Citing:

Cited – Somerset County Council v Isaacs Admn 24-May-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Cited – Hooper and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 14-Feb-2002
The claimants alleged that the way they were treated as widowers under the benefits subjected them to discrimination.
Held: The continued payment of widow’s pension was objectively justified. . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178301

Regina 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 requiring the sale.
Held: The 1985 Act made no reference to the 1938 Act, because it was not imagined that they would conflict. The 1938 Act restricted voluntary sales by Authorities. The 1985 imposed obligations to sell. The obligations created did not conflict. The obligation to sell stood.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill, Hope of Craighead, Hutton, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-2002, Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] UKHL 45, [2003] 1 All ER 15, [2003] HLR 30, [2002] 48 EGCS 138, [2002] 1 WLR 3250, [2002] NPC 142, [2003] BLGR 1

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 5, Housing Act 1985 118

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – Regina 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 . .
At first instance – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178195

South Lanarkshire Council v McKenna: ScSf 3 Jan 2014

ScSf This appeal arises from two distinct decisions taken by the sheriff in the context of a summary cause action for recovery of possession of a house let on a short Scottish secure tenancy under sections 34 to 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In advance of the appeal hearing, both sides had prepared extensive and detailed written submissions.
Held: The sheriff principal, having resumed consideration of the appeal, Refuses same; Answers the questions posed by the sheriff in the stated case in the negative; Adheres to the interlocutors of the sheriff dated 22 April and 5 November 2010; Finds the defender liable to the pursuers in the expenses of the appeal procedure; Allows an account thereof to be given in and remits same, when lodged, to the auditor of court to tax and to report thereon.

Judges:

Sheriff Principal C A L Scott QC

Citations:

[2014] ScotSC 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Housing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.519735

Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2002

The applicant had defended an action for possession for arrears of rent, and counterclaimed for damages for failure to repair. A compromise was put to the court, and the court took that as consent and made a possession order. The tenant appealed.
Held: The court had not had jurisdiction to make the possession order and the appeal succeeded. To make a possession order, the statutory requirements had to be fulfilled, and the compromise agreement could not be read as an admission of the arrears as necessary under the Act. There had been no finding or judgement or express or implied admission, and the decision could not stand.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-2002, Gazette 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1340, [2002] 49 EG 126, [2002] EGLR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Court of Appeal – Gil v Baygreen Properties Limited (In Liquidation) and Others ChD 19-Aug-2004
. .
Cited – G v E and Others CA 16-Jul-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic disorder leading to severe learning disability and lack of mental capacity. He had been in the care of his sister, the appellant, but had been removed by the local authority when his behaviour became disturbed. G, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174373

Howard v Charlton: CA 25 Jul 2002

The applicant had a mobile home with the benefit of protection under the Act. He built a permanent porch for the home. The land owner appealed refusal of an order to say that she had lost her rights under the Act. He argued that it had lost its mobility.
Held: The judge had held that the essential nature of the dwelling had not changed. This was the wrong test. The agreement under which she had first occupied the land included the characterisation of the occupation as protected under the Act. The test was whether that agreement had been validly terminated. It had not.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

Times 19-Aug-2002, Gazette 26-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1086

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mobiles Home Act 1983 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council CA 6-Apr-1994
The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Contract

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174357

Regina (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 3 May 2002

A family had been found to be voluntarily homeless. The family asked the authority to provide housing to the family under the 1989 Act from its duty to care for the children.
Held: The 1989 Act did not change the law in the 1980 Act. The authority had a power to assist and Another child in these circumstances. However, it was not a duty, and the authority had a discretion as to how it might use the power. The 2001 Lambeth case was wrongly decided. The powers of the authority were not to be compartmentalized.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 23-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17, Child Care Act 1980 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 5-Nov-2001
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an . .

Cited by:

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

Children, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171259

Wahid v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: CA 7 Mar 2002

Gilliatt The appellant suffered from schizophrenia. He was refused permission to apply for judicial review and for orders requiring the local authority not just to provide suitable accommodation but better accommodation as a person in need of care and attention under s 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948. The court decided that in a case where the evidence showed that a person’s housing needs could adequately be meet by the provision of ordinary housing, there was no extra duty under the National Assistance Act. The family had a housing need, not just the claimant as a result of his mental illness. He was not in need of ‘care and assistance’ under the National Assistance Act. The power to provide accommodation is dependent upon three conditions being satisfied: first, the person must be in need of care and attention; secondly, the need must arise by reason of age, illness, disability or ‘other circumstances’ and, thirdly, the care and attention which is needed must not be available otherwise than by the provision of accommodation under section 21.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Mummery LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 287, [2003] HLR 2, [2002] 5 CCLR 247, [2002] BLGR 545, [2002] LGR 545

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild CA 16-Mar-2007
The tenant held a secure tenancy of a first floor flat of the Council. She was severely disabled and argued that the danger of injury meant that she should be allowed to occupy the empty ground floor flat. She complained at the way the authority had . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Cited – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168081

Bempoa, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: Admn 14 Feb 2002

Gilliatt The court issued a very public and highly deserved rebuke of LB Southwark’s ‘outrageous’ breach of an undertaking to a court not to enforce a possession order. The case is interesting in its detail of the systematic failures of the local authority. The court also gave the appellant leave to apply for damages, whilst expressing some doubts about the personal right to damages of the victim of a contemptuous action.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 153 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Contempt of Court, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168030

Regina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of ‘once an assured tenancy, always an assured tenancy’. The provisions of Schedule 10 relied upon do not set a ceiling of andpound;25,000 on the amount of he annual rent which may be validly proposed or which the Committee ma validly determine. The case advanced by Mr Morris would, if accepted, produce the surprising conclusion that a tenant could remain in a high value property at less than the proper open market rent determined by the Committee. If the rent is determined by the Committee at a figure exceeding andpound;25,000, the landlord is not prohibited by statute from recovering it: the result is that the tenancy will simply cease to qualify for protection as an assured tenancy. The alternative submission on the validity of the notice fails because the rent proposed in the notice was, as the judge held, a realistic rent based on valuation evidence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 276, [2002] 24 EG 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 4-May-2001
. .
Approved – 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 . .
See Also – Moore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee CA 17-Oct-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Hughes 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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168080

Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 11 Feb 2002

The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing.
Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keith

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Housing Act 1996 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168028

Conway, Regina (on the Application of) v Mayor and Burgesses of the Borough of Charnwood: Admn 17 Jan 2002

The applicant sought to be placed on the defendant borough’s rehousing list. She was disabled with four dependant children. She had family who would be able to help her if she moved. Before her appeal was heard the Borough changed its policy to exclude applicants under the age of 60.
Held: The authority had some discretion as to how to conduct its housing register. The new policy allowed no discretion to officials. In the circumstances the review panel should have operated under the previous policy, and should have seen that it retained a discretion. The decision was quashed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 43 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Canterbury City Council ex parte Gillespie 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168021

London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Runa Begum: CA 6 Mar 2002

The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions on disputed facts, and reviewing its own decisions on those facts. It was not acting independently.
Held: The review was a determination of the applicants civil rights, and not merely the exercise of a discretion. Though there may have been no actual bias in the decision, it was done in private, and there was an appearance of risk of bias. The s204 right of appeal to the county court was part of the same procedure, and was independent. That court had full power to look at those matters at issue, and was a sufficient remedy to any defects in the earlier procedure.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2002, Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] HLR 70, [2002] EWCA Civ 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1, Housing Act 1996 204(1), Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, Local Authority (Contracting Out of Allocation Housing Homelessness Functions) Order 1996 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Distinguished – London Borough of Newham v Adan CA 14-Dec-2001
The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Appeal from – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild CA 16-Mar-2007
The tenant held a secure tenancy of a first floor flat of the Council. She was severely disabled and argued that the danger of injury meant that she should be allowed to occupy the empty ground floor flat. She complained at the way the authority had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167733

O’Connor and Others v Old Etonians Housing Association Ltd: CA 20 Feb 2002

The pipes in a block of flats had been changed from 1.5 to 1 inch. This was all right for some 6 years until the water pressure of the supply to the building dropped. The issue was whether there was a breach of the s.11(1) covenant. The landlords appealed saying that the section imposed upon them a duty to repair only, and not an obligation to ensure that the pipes were physically or mechanically capable of supplying water.
Held: There was a distinction between the duty to keep in repair, and the duty to keep in proper working order. It was not in proper working order if, through a defect in construction or design, it was not supplying what it should. The landlord was not under an obligation to provide s supply which could survive any changes in circumstances, but he did have a duty to maintain a system which could reasonably cope with any changes in the supply which might be expected. ‘an installation will be in proper working order if it is able to function under those conditions of supply that it is reasonable to anticipate will prevail.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus Van Der Loo CA 10-Feb-2004
The tenant counterclaimed an action by the landlord for rent saying the property had not been repaired under the landlord’s covenant. The water supply had for 33 months been weak, leading to only a trickle of water being available, and there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167723

Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson: CA 25 Jan 2002

Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful and proportionate. So far as such non-secure tenancies were concerned, the judge was not obliged to grant possession, but had a discretion.
Held: The homes were to be treated as such despite any lack of security. Nevertheless, the balance of interests under Article 8(2) was properly struck. There are some statutory regimes under which the balance of interests arising under Article 8(2) has in all its essentials been struck by the legislature and under which a court, before ordering a defendant to give up possession of accommodation where he has been living, is not obliged to adjudicate upon the specific merits of coercive action in an individual case. The word ‘engaged’ is not part of the vocabulary of human rights law.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2002, Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 4, [2002] LGR 467, [2002] HLR 639

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 193, Housing Act 1985 21(1), European Convention on Human Rights 8.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Cited – Nadine Delson v London Borough of Lambeth CA 19-Nov-2002
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of second application for permission to apply for judicial review.
Held: It was not sustainable to suggest that the section was incompatible with the cliamant’s human rights. Leave to appeal . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield District Council CA 1-Apr-2009
The appellant was a non-secure tenant of the respondent. It had served a notice to quit and he now appealed against an order for possession on public law grounds.
Held: There had been a delay between the issue of the notice to quit and the . .
Cited – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Cited – Salford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167526

Dance v Welwyn Hatfield Distrrict Council: CA 1990

The secure tenants had claimed to exercise their right to buy; the local authority admitted their right and proposed a price which was accepted. The authority offered a partial mortgage which was accepted and by reference to which they had exercised their statutory right to elect deferred completion. The authority then notified them of its intention to demolish the property and contended that, because prior to their exercise of the right to buy it would be entitled to an order for possession on that basis, it was no longer obliged to complete the sale.
Held: The authority’s appeal was unsuccessful. Lord Justice Nourse held that in the words of s138(1) of the Act, the right to buy had been established and all matters relating to the grant and to the amount to be left outstanding or advanced on the security of the property had been agreed. Once such a right had been established and all such matters had been agreed, the tenants had become entitled under s. 138(3) to enforce completion of the sale and had thus acquired an equitable interest in the property. On any view the tenants had already exercised their right to buy and so the local authority would not remain entitled to an order for possession.

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1097

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Martin v Medina Housing Association Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The former tenant had set out to buy the council house, but had written to say that she did not intend to go ahead. Her son who had taken over the tenancy after her death now sought, twelve years later, to require the authority to proceed at that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.242432

Regina 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 the LHA considered before, in January, refusing her again. The reconsideration of the case was voluntary.
Lord Justice Simon Brown (obiter): ‘In my judgment, this council went as far as it possibly could in construing section 61 in a way favourable to this appellant. By no stretch of the imagination could [the cousin’s] presence in the neighbouring borough be regarded as a family association such as to give the appellant a local connection with the respondent under section 61(1)(c). Indeed [counsel] does not so submit. . . . To my mind it is far from clear that an appellant’s claim to be housed under Part III of the 1985 Act can be improved in this fashion simply because the local authority accede to a request to review the matter, as this local authority has done after the initial decision was taken.’ Though it was unnecessary to deal definitively with the point the Lord Justice questioned whether the local authority should have acceded to the request for a review.
Simon Brown considered the nature of the authority’s residual discretion: ‘Residual Discretion. That such a discretion exists cannot be doubted. Plainly a local authority are entitled to house an applicant even if he or she has an obvious local connection with some other borough and none at all with their own. To my mind that proposition hardly needs the citation of authority, although I record that it is so stated in R v London Borough of Newham, ex p London Borough of Tower Hamlets (1993) 23 HLR 62 at 71. It should, however, be remembered that this particular legislation is concerned essentially with a local authority’s housing function rather than with their social services function. It is not to be thought that a London borough, very hard pressed as doubtless they all are in connection with their public housing stock, will very readily accept on an entirely voluntary basis a housing obligation which, by virtue of section 67, they are perfectly entitled to refer elsewhere and which, indeed some other borough expressly accepts. Nevertheless, I repeat, such a discretion exists. . . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Staughton

Citations:

[1996] 30 HLR 1

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65(2) 67(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic QBD 1996
The applicant challenged a referral of her application for housing as a homeless person by Hammersmith back to Kirklees from where she had moved. She had a cousin in Hammersmith.
Held: Her application for judical review failed. Tucker J: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .
Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.229857

Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate: CA 1990

The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The meaning of the phrase ‘let as a separate dwelling’ had contracted and no longer included a tenancy for mixed purposes.

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Denning LJ, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 42

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .
Not Binding – Pulleng v Curran CA 1980
The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them.
Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. . .
Cited – Epsom Grandstand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
The court considered whether a property, let and used as a public house on the ground floor with a flat above, fell within the ambit of the 1915 Act.
Held: Bankes LJ said that the property ‘was a dwelling house, and nonetheless so because it . .
Cited – Wolfe v Hogan CA 1949
An issue arose as to the purpose of the original letting. The defendant was the sub-tenant of a large divided room on the ground floor of a house in Chelsea which she used for business purposes. She eventually decided to live there as well.
Cited – Russell v Booker CA 1982
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the . .

Cited by:

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

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.242246

Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar: CA 19 Dec 2001

Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the notice was likely to serve the purpose, and it could be valid. There was not a two stage test of first determining whether there was an obvious mistake. The test was rather whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice was substantially to the same effect as the correct version in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the notice was not to set the terms of eth tenancy, because the tenancy did not yet exist, and was created by the tenancy and not by the notice, but rather and only to help the tenant identify which tenancy would be subject to these conditions.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, however, a detailed analysis of each decision is not a profitable exercise: the question whether a notice under section 20 is in the prescribed form or is in a form ‘substantially to the same effect’ is a question of fact and degree in each case, turning on a comparison between the prescribed form in Annex 1 and the particular form of notice given . . The question is simply whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice is ‘substantially to the same effect’ in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith;Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2034, [2002] 1 P and CR DG22, [2002] 11 EG 156, [2002] 3 EGCS 127, [2002] L and TR 25, [2001] NPC 188, [2002] 1 EGLR 9, [2002] HLR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 SI No 2203)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Clickex Ltd v McCann CA 26-May-1999
A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create . .
Cited – Andrews 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, . .
Cited – Manel and Others v Memon CA 20-Apr-2000
A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The . .
Cited – Roberts v Church Commissioners for England CA 1972
The court considered the nature of the habendum in a lease. Stamp LJ said: It is well settled that the habendum in a lease only marks the duration of the tenant’s interest, and that the operation of the lease as a grant takes effect only from time . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Applied – B Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others CA 22-Jan-2003
Notices were given which were incorrect.
Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors. . .
Cited – Lay 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 . .
Cited – Ayannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167406

Reynolds v Brent London Borough Council: CA 4 Dec 2001

When a local authority was considering the fitness of a proposed licensee for the purposes of managing a house in multiple occupation, it was not under an obligation first to consider whether conditions proposed by the manager, would adequately meet any objections. The clause which allowed the court to attach conditions was free standing and separate. The authority was entitled to refuse registration without considering the imposition of restrictions.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1843

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Licensing, Local Government

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167111

London Borough of Newham v Adan: CA 14 Dec 2001

The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority now appealed.
Held: The County Court in reviewing such decisions under the section, was exercising a jurisdiction similar to that of the High Court on a judicial review, and therefore was bound by the factual findings of the reviewing officer. The county court has no power to direct a local housing authority how to carry out a review. If there was any question of unfairness in the procedure in denying her a fair trial, then that was for parliament to remedy. The reviewing officer’s decision was re-instated.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice David Steel

Citations:

Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1916, [2002] 1 WLR 2120, [2001] NPC 185, [2002] UKHRR 229, [2002] HLR 28, [2002] HRLR 17, [2002] 1 All ER 931, 2002 Hous LR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 204(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Runa Begum CA 6-Mar-2002
The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167059

Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 1 Nov 2001

Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under section 193. The authority told Mrs M that they accepted a duty to arrange accommodation for her but that, although she had a local connection with Ealing where she had lived, she had no connection with Hammersmith, so the applications of both husband and wife were referred to Ealing on the basis that they appeared to have a local connection with Ealing but not with Hammersmith. The decision to refer was upheld on review and in the county court on the basis that the husband’s residence in Hammersmith was not normal residence under 199(1)(a). Hammersmith argued that the occupation of interim accommodation pending a decision on the husband’s application under section 193 could not amount to normal residence. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. When testing the decision of a local authority to refer an applicant for housing to another local authority, on the basis that the applicant had no local connection, the authority must make allowance for an interim residence in the area. The prima facie meaning of ‘normal residence,’ was a place where, at the relevant time, the person in fact resided. So long as that place where he eat and slept was voluntarily accepted by him, the reason why he was there rather than somewhere else did not prevent that place from being his normal residence. The date at which the connection was to be tested was the date at which the review was carried out, and the review could include matters arising after the initial decision.
The occupation by a homeless person of interim accommodation provided under section 188 of the 1996 Act could be ‘normal residence’ for the purpose of establishing a local connection under section 199.
Lord Slynn of Hadley stated that words like ‘ordinary residence’ and ‘normal residence’ take their precise meaning from the context of the legislation in which they appear. He suggested that the place that a person voluntarily accepts and in which he eats and sleeps is for the relevant time where he normally resides. The fact that the local authority had given him interim accommodation in performance of its statutory duty under section 188 of the 1996 Act did not prevent that accommodation from being the place where he was for the time normally resident.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2001, Gazette 22-Nov-2001, [2001] UKHL 57, [2002 1 AC 547, [2002] 1 All ER 176, [2002] HLR 7, [2001] 3 WLR 1339, [2002] 1 FCR 183, [2001] NPC 154

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 198 199(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Appeal from – Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .
Cited – Regina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts HL 27-Jul-1983
Mr Betts applied to Eastleigh for accommodation under the 1977 Act. They said that he had no local connection and referred his application to Blaby where the applicant and his family had formerly been living. Blaby accepted the referral and offered . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Southwark ex parte Olivia Hughes Admn 6-Oct-1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
Cited – Calgin, 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 . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Cited – Cornwall Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council SC 8-Jul-2015
PH had severe physical and learning disabilities and was without speech, lacking capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166720

McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another: CA 16 Oct 2001

The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was refused. The probationary regime was intended to protect other tenants and the local authority from anti-social and non-paying tenants. Additional procedural safeguards had been provided and gave adequate protection to the tenant.
Waller LJ considered the duties of a council under the introductory tenancy scheme: ‘If the council in providing reasons alleges acts constituting nuisance, and if the allegations themselves are disputed, that at first sight seems to raise issues of fact. But under the introductory tenancy scheme it is not a requirement that the council should be satisfied that the breaches of the tenancy agreement have in fact taken place. The right question under the scheme will be whether in the context of allegation and counter-allegation it was reasonable for the council to take a decision to proceed with termination of the introductory tenancy.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Latham, And Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-2001, Times 03-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1510, [2002] QB 1129, [2002] LGR 191

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Langton, Allen, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another Admn 17-Dec-2001
The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Doran v Liverpool City Council CA 3-Mar-2009
The claimant sought to set aside an order requiring him to give up possession of a caravan pitch held under the 1968 Act.
Held: The decision to serve a notice to quit which was reasonable on the facts known to the local authority at the time . .
Cited – Orchard v Lee CA 3-Apr-2009
The claimant appealed rejection of her claim for personal injuries. She was supervising a school playground, and was injured by a 13 year old child running backwards into her. She claimed against the boy. The judge found it to be mere horseplay.
Cited – Salford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .
Cited – Gaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166645

Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt: CA 12 Oct 2001

Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights.
Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies’ right to respect for private and family life.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-2001, Times 09-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1549, [2002] 1 WLR 1359

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 6(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .

Cited by:

Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Cited – North West Estates Plc v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 22-May-2003
There had been many attempts to enforce and resist enforcement of a planning notice.
Held: The landowner was not entitled now to challenge the application for injunctive relief, where he had not appealed the validity of the enforcement notice. . .
Appeal from – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166647

Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets: Admn 23 Aug 2001

The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. The Act sought to satisfy a need for care with housing provision. It is a safety net provision for urgent cases. In this case no sufficient need for care had been shown to require the Authority to act under the section.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burton

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 641, (2001) 4 CCLR 455, [2002] LGR 545

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 11-Feb-2002
The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing.
Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision . .
Appeal from – Wahid v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 7-Mar-2002
Gilliatt The appellant suffered from schizophrenia. He was refused permission to apply for judicial review and for orders requiring the local authority not just to provide suitable accommodation but better . .
Cited – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166140

North British Housing Association Limited v Lorraine Matthews: CA 21 Dec 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Dyson The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1736

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.221488

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Lemeh: CA 3 Apr 2000

The court noted that there was no reported case in which it had actually been decided ‘that oppression can include oppression caused by misleading information given by the court office’, and continued: ‘In principle, I am unable to see why oppression of that kind should not be included. The way in which that ground is usually stated is `oppression in the execution of the warrant’. Once the warrant has been obtained, its execution is a matter between the court and the tenant. It is the officer of the court who executes the warrant and the landlord has no part in that process. Moreover, there seems to be no reason why oppression should be confined to oppressive conduct on the part of the landlord or some other person. It ought to include any state of affairs which is oppressive to the tenant.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 3 April 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.187048

Jones v Cook: CA 1990

The defendant held a tenanted property. The landlords sought possession, saying that the local authority would provide suitable alternative accommodation nearby. The authority provided a certificate to say that the accommodation would be similar. The judge accepted the certificte without investigating further. The tenant appealed saying that the certificate did not say just what accommodtion would be available.
Held: The judge was mistaken. He should have looked behind the certificate to determine whether the accommodation offered was similar to that referred to in the certificate. If he did not find a similariy, the deeming provisions would not apply.

Citations:

(1990) 22 HLR 319

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 15 Part IV paragraph 5(1)(a)(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.245849

Cresswell v Hodgson: CA 1951

The landlord sought possession. The tenant had a controlled tenancy. L offered the tenant another house (one he had built) as alternative accommodation. The rent was higher. The landlord was under pressure from his bank and wanted capital to pay off his overdraft. He wanted to sell the tenanted house with vacant possession at an unrestricted price, whereas the maximum price at which he could sell the house he had built was restricted.
Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed, the court holding that the judge had taken into account the factors he should have done. The judge had properly considered both sides – the positions of both the landlord and the tenant, and found the offered alternative accommodation suitable but that it would not be reasonable to make the order: its making would represent nothing but loss to the tenant and nothing but very substantial gain to the landlord. As to the reasonableness of making an order for possession, Parliament had given the judge in the county court a very wide discretion, and that the Court of Appeal should not say anything that restricted the circumstances he should take into consideration. Denning LJ thought that the word ‘reasonable’ meant ‘reasonable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned and also reasonable having regard to the interests of the public’.
Somervell LJ said: ‘I think the words of the section themselves indicate that the county court judge must look at the effect of the order on each party to it. I do not see how it is possible to consider whether it is reasonable to make an order unless you consider its effect on landlord and tenant, firstly, if you make it, and secondly, if you do not. I do not think we should say anything which restricts the circumstances which the county court judge should take into consideration. I think he is entitled to take into consideration that this is a case where the landlord is making a pecuniary gain. That might in other cases be a fact in the landlord’s favour, and it might be thought reasonable that he should be given the chance of making pecuniary gain.’
Singleton LJ said: ‘It seems to me that if a county court judge, in a case of this kind, found that the landlord was in dire financial straits – and landlords sometimes are – whereas the tenant was well-to-do, that would be a matter which the county court judge could consider. Equally, if he found that the tenant would be put into grave difficulty by the making of the order whereas the landlord would not be in any difficulty, because he had more means, again I think that is a matter for consideration.’ Because the tenant’s employment gave him a rent allowance that would cover the increased rent at the alternative accommodation, he was in a much better position than most tenants and that ‘it may well be that many persons might not have come to the conclusion at which the county court judge arrived.’ But as the question of fact was for the judge, and he had not erred in principle or made a mistake in law, his decision must be upheld.

Judges:

Somervell LJ, Denning LJ, and Singleton LJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 All ER 710, [1951] 2 KB 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Battlespring Ltd v Gates CA 1983
The tenant had occupied the house for 35 years. She resisted an application by her landlord to rehouse her. She had brought up her family there and did want to leave.
Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed. The landlord’s interest which was . .
Cited – Moat Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris and Another CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant family was served without notice with an anti-social behaviour order ordering them to leave their home immediately, and making other very substantial restrictions. The evidence in large part related to other people entirely.
Cited – Whitehouse v Lee CA 14-May-2009
The tenant appealed against an order requiring her to give up possession of her flat, held under the 1977 Act, saying that the court should not have found it reasonable to make an order after finding alternative accommodation suitable.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.221514

Cardiff City Council v Stone: CA 29 Jan 2002

A local authority having served a notice on the tenant that the tenancy granted was under the section and therefore introductory, was not obliged to reserve a notice before beginning possession proceedings, even though several months may have passed since the review requested by the tenant under the notice, and the situation had changed.
Held: The system did not allow a discretion, the court had to grant possession. Though section 128 was mandatory, it applied to notices by the landlord and not to decisions of the review tribunal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge and Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-2002

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 129 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Johns) v Bracknell Forest District Council 2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Forbes v Lambeth London Borough Council; Regina (Forbes) v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 18-Feb-2003
The claimant had been granted an introductory tenancy. He appealed a possession order. The council had issued a notice of its intention to seek possession, but then after a review made a decision not to seek possession. It later issued a notice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.167626

Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd: CA 31 Jul 2001

The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Mecca case was wrongly decided. The deeming provision in the lease was decisive, or nearly so, contra indication of the idea that time should not be of the essence in such cases. Per Arden LJ: ‘It is relevant, however, to note that the lease is made between two commercial parties. If the tenant had been a consumer and the provisions for review of rent had not been individually negotiated (and no other enactment applied), it would be open to the tenant to argue that by virtue of the Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 S1 1999/2083, the provisions of proviso (2) are not binding on him’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Kay, Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Gazette 20-Sep-2001, Times 02-Oct-2001, Gazette 04-Oct-2001, [2002] 4 All ER 264, [2001] EWCA Civ 1252, [2002] Ch 306

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S1 1999/2083)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

per incuriam – Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd 1984
. .
Applied – Henry Smith’s Charity Trustees Ltd v AWADA Trading and Promotion Services Ltd 1984
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham Admn 10-Oct-2003
Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159890

Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon: HL 26 Oct 2000

When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in conveyancing terms there was no positive obligation not to become bankrupt, the Acts should be interpreted in the context of the legislation as a whole. There was no reason in principle to distinguish between forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and a proviso for re-entry on insolvency.
‘The Rent Acts were enacted in haste and in places badly drafted, and have greatly perplexed judges of the greatest distinction over many decades . . But unless the words used are inconsistent with the policy of the Acts they must be given their natural meaning. Since the proviso for re-entry has no possible application to a statutory tenancy, there is no policy reason to distinguish between a statutory tenancy which follows the determination of a contractual tenancy which contains such a proviso and a statutory tenancy which follows the determination of one which does not. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000, Gazette 16-Nov-2000, [2000] 3 WLR 1555, [2000] UKHL 52, [2001] 1 EGLR 47, [2001] BPIR 17, [2001] 1 AC 378, (2001) 81 P and CR DG11, (2001) 33 HLR 42, [2000] 4 All ER 897, [2001] L and TR 2, [2000] NPC 110, [2000] EG 119, [2001] 06 EG 164

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon CA 9-Jun-1999
A provision in a tenancy agreement that the tenancy would cease upon the bankruptcy of the tenant, continued and became part of the terms of a statutory tenancy following the contractual one. The provision was not inconsistent with the idea of the . .
Cited – In re Drew (A Bankrupt) 1929
(Ireland) A tenant subject to a re-entry clause in his tenancy agreement in the case of his being made bankrupt, and who had gone bankrupt had broken an obligation of his tenancy. He was not protected from an order for possession. ‘The tenant here . .
Cited – RMR Housing Society Ltd v Combs 1951
The court considered it unnecessary to distinguish between terms and conditions of a tenancy forfeiting the tenancy on the insolvency of the tenant as to the result or effect for their breach. . .
Cited – Paterson v Aggio CA 1987
The Court considered whether a tenancy was a ‘protected shorthold tenancy’ within the meaning of section 52 of the Housing Act 1980 and therefore excluded from the protection of the Rent Act 1977.
Held: A power to forfeit within the minimum . .
Cited – Halliard Property Co Ltd v Jack Segal Ltd 1978
The court considered a proviso for re-entry that: ‘forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee is considered as a case of breach of condition.’
Held: It was clearly a condition rather than a mere covenant of the original protected tenancy that . .
Cited – Read v Goater 1921
As to the Rent Acts, it was essential ‘that, wherever possible, [they] should be construed in a broad, practical, common-sense manner so as to effect the intention of the Legislature’ . .
Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
Cited – Brewer v Jacobs 1923
A proviso for re-entry in a tenancy is inapplicable to a statutory tenancy. It is concerned with the forfeiture of an existing term and can have no application after the contractual term has expired. Once the statutory tenancy has come into being, . .
Cited – Roe v Russell CA 1928
Sargant LJ said that the Rent Acts had ‘not been framed with any scientific accuracy of language.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Insolvency

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159086

Birmingham City Council v Oakley: HL 29 Nov 2000

When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory and might be considered insanitary did not fall within the provision. The risk of cross infection because the water closet was placed next to the kitchen, and wash basin was in the bathroom on the other side, could not constitute a state of the premises. A broad reading of the words might include the premises. Nevertheless, considering the history of the legislation a narrow interpretation was correct. The section was directed to the presence in the house of some feature in itself prejudicial to health as a source of infection, disease, or illness. The difficulty here was not in the rooms in themselves rather but than their condition, and was outside the purpose of the section, and not a statutory nuisance.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘My Lords, on the surface, this does not look like a very momentous case. The question is whether Mr and Mrs Oakley’s landlord should have provided them with a basin in the wc. The statute which they say made it necessary to install one is ambiguous. The language is capable of bearing such a construction. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that this was what Parliament intended. So the courts have a choice. If they say that Mr and Mrs Oakley should have had a basin, landlords of old houses and flats all over the country will have to instal them. Local authorities and housing trusts will have to incur very considerable expense. Under the surface, therefore, the case raises a question of great constitutional importance. When it comes to the expenditure of large sums of public and private money, who should make the decision? If the statute is clear, then of course Parliament has already made the decision and the courts merely enforce it. But when the statute is doubtful, should judges decide? Or should they leave the decision to democratically elected councillors or members of Parliament?’ and ‘when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator of those days. The same is true of social standards. The concept of cruelty is the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights 1688 forbade the infliction of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’. But changes in social standards mean that punishments which would not have been regarded as cruel in 1688 will be so regarded today.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 59, [2001] 1 All ER 385, [2000] 3 WLR 1936, [2001] 1 AC 617

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 77 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salford 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 . .
Appeal from – Oakley v Birmingham City Council QBD 8-Jan-1999
The justices had concluded that the layout itself of premises was so unhygienic as to be ‘in a state prejudicial to health.’ The small toilets without a wash basin and next to the kitchen created a risk of cross-infection, and were a statutory . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Cited – Vella 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 . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159093

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: HL 24 Jun 1999

The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to occupy a house and to re-let it, but under conditions which were more consistent with a tenancy rather than a licence. The claimant’s occupation was deemed to be under a tenancy and not a licence, despite assertions to the contrary. Exclusive possession for repeated periods of time created a tenancy.
Lord Hoffmann said that an agreement can give rise to a tenancy even if it does not create ‘an estate or other proprietary interest which may be binding upon third parties

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jul-1999, Times 25-Jun-1999, Gazette 21-Jul-1999, [1999] 3 All ER 481, [2000] 1 AC 406, [1999] UKHL 26, [1999] 2 EGLR 59, [1999] 3 WLR 150, [1999] EG 90, [1999] L and TR 469, (1999) 31 HLR 902, [1999] NPC 73, [1999] 30 EG 91, (1999) 78 P and CR D21

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Clarke HL 29-Apr-1992
An occupant of a hostel for homeless and vulnerable single men had only a licence to occupy the room, and was not a tenant. There was a resident warden and a team of support workers. The intention was that residents should use the hostel as a . .
Cited – Family Association v Jones CA 1990
The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis. They sought possession.
Held: A tenancy had been granted. As to the argument that there were . .
Cited – Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts CA 1949
The council sought to exercise its powers under the Act to take possession of part of the defendant’s property.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘It is necessary to consider the nature of the power to requisition land. It is only a power to take . .
Cited – Morton v Woods QBD 1867
The owner of a factory, having already conveyed his legal estate by virtue of a first charge, purported to grant a second mortgage to a bank. As additional security, he ‘attorned tenant’ to the bank. He acknowledged a relationship of landlord and . .
Cited – Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries v Matthews 1950
Under the Act, it would be ultra vires the Crown’s powers to grant a tenancy of property it had requisitioned. . .
Cited – Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The ‘Diana Prosperity’) HL 1976
In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility is not decisive. . .
Appeal from – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 31-Jul-1997
A person with no sufficient title to land cannot create a tenancy of the land which would be binding by an estoppel if that tenancy would exclude his own possible claim for possession. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159009

City Council of Bristol v Lovell: HL 26 Feb 1998

A County Court may stay a right to buy application by the tenant, even though terms had been agreed, in order to await the result of court proceedings for possession against the secure misbehaving tenant. A court’s case management powers can be invoked to determine substantive rights.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-1998, Gazette 05-Mar-1998, Gazette 08-Apr-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 446, [1998] UKHL 8, [1998] 1 All ER 775

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part V

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Walsall Justices, ex parte W (a minor) QBD 1990
A youth was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. His trial was fixed for 11 October 1988. On the date of trial, the prosecution applied for an adjournment on the grounds that, if the trial proceeded immediately and the magistrates decided that . .

Cited by:

Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
Cited – Knowsley 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158939

London Borough of Harrow v Johnstone: HL 13 Mar 1997

A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the tenancy.
Lord Mustill said the Spycatcher injunctions were ‘obviously intended to stop the publication by any medium of materials which would compromise the pending proceedings’

Judges:

Mustill, Browne-Wilkinson, Jaunceey of Tullichettle, Hoffmann, Clyde LL

Citations:

Gazette 16-Apr-1997, Times 14-Mar-1997, [1997] UKHL 9, [1997] 1 All ER 929, [1997] 1 WLR 459, [1997] 2 FCR 225, [1997] 1 FLR 887, [1997] Fam Law 478, [1997] 95 LGR 470

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Harrow London Borough Council v Johnstone CA 31-Mar-1995
A local authority was denied a possession order against a Husband when the Wife who had been excluded from the property by a court order surrendered the tenancy. . .
Cited – Roche v Roche CA 1981
. .
Cited – Shipman v Shipman FD 1991
W sought an order under s37 of the 1973 Act restraining H in divorce proceedings from disposing of or dealing with $300,000, or one half of his severance pay, whichever was the greater, pending determination of the ancillary relief proceedings.
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .
Cited – Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen CA 16-Jan-1997
The tenant had been joint tenant with his wife of a house. On the breakdown of the marriage, she left and gave notice to quit to the council. The council sought and obtained an order for possession, against which the husband now sought leave to . .
Cited – Chapman v Honig CA 1963
A landlord’s notice to quit was held valid notwithstanding that the landlord seeking to uphold its validity had himself given it in contempt of court.
A contractual right may be exercised for any reason good, bad or indifferent and the motive . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Harrow London Borough Council v Johnstone CA 31-Mar-1995
A local authority was denied a possession order against a Husband when the Wife who had been excluded from the property by a court order surrendered the tenancy. . .
Cited – Steen v Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another CA 23-Mar-2001
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158884

Elitestone 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’ appeals succeeded. A built structure becomes part of the land and itself real property, according to the degree of annexation and purpose. In this case the bungalows were not demountable.
Lord Clyde: ‘As the law has developed it has become easy to neglect the original principle from which the consequences of attachment of a chattel to realty derive. That is the principle of accession, from which the more particular example has been formulated, inaedificatum solo solo cedit. A clear distinction has to be draw between the principle of accession and the rules of removability. ‘

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, Gazette 14-May-1997, [1997] UKHL 15, [1997] 2 All ER 513, [1997] 1 WLR 687

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Boswell v Crucible Steel Co CA 1925
The question was whether plate glass windows which formed part of the wall of a warehouse were landlord’s fixtures within the meaning of a repairing covenant. Atkin LJ answered: ‘. . I am quite satisfied that they are not landlord’s fixtures, and . .
Cited – Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals HL 16-Oct-1995
Chattels which became affixed to a lessee’s land became fixtures, and were not available for tax allowances calculations. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the . .
Cited – Holland 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 . .
Cited – Webb v Frank Bevis Ltd 1940
The tenant’s large shed was fixed to the land.
Held: It was a tenant’s fixture which could be removed by the tenant at the end of his tenancy, even though it was annexed to the land and formed part of it. . .
Cited – Deen v Andrews 1986
Land was sold. The parties disputed whether a greenhouse was included.
Held: It was a large greenhouse consisting of a sectional frame bolted to a large concrete base. ‘Building’ was to be given the meaning ascribed by s62 of the 1925 Act. The . .
Cited – Wansborough v Maton 1836
The court found that a wooden barn had not become part of the land. . .
Cited – Rex v Otley 1830
A wooden mill was held not to have become annexed to and part of the land. . .
Cited – H E Dibble v Moore CA 1969
A greenhouse was not an ‘erection’ within section 62(1). Megaw LJ noted that it was customary to move the greenhouse every few years, . .
Cited – Billing v Pill 1954
A shed was erected on land. It was 135 feet long and 150ft wide. It was on a concrete floor and attached by straps. Was it a fixture?
Held: Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘What is a fixture? The commonest fixture is a house which is built into the . .
Cited – Wiltshear v Cottrell 1854
A wooden granary was not a fixture. When an article is no further attached to the land, then by its own weight it is generally to be considered a mere chattel. . .
Cited – Reid v Smith 8-Dec-1905
(High Court of Australia) The Supreme Court of Queensland had held that the house remained a chattel. ‘The short point raised in this case is whether an ordinary dwelling-house, erected upon an ordinary town allotment in a large town, but not . .
Cited – Hobson v Gorringe CA 1897
The intention of the parties in affixing an object to land is only relevant to the extent that it can be derived from the degree and object of the annexation: ‘the intention of the parties as to the ownership of the chattel fixed to the land is only . .
Cited – Leigh v Taylor HL 6-Feb-2002
Valuable tapestries had been set up for display in a room in a stately home . They were first stretched over canvas and then tacked to the canvas. That canvas was then stretched over strips of wood and nailed to those strips of wood which in turn . .
Cited – Reynolds v Ashby and Son HL 1904
Machines had been affixed to the premises. The court was asked whether they were caught by a fixed charge over the company’s land and fixed assets.
Held: The machines were fixed by bolts only and no damage would be caused to the building by . .
Mentioned – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Ex parte Barclay 1855
The court asked what was meant by a fixture: ‘By ‘fixtures’ we understand such things as are ordinarily affixed to the freehold for the convenience of the occupier, and which may be removed without material injury to the freehold, such will be . .
Cited – Boyd v Shorrock 1867
. .
Cited – Niven v Pitcairn 1823
Large leaden vessels which were not fastened to the building in any way but simply rested by their own weight were held to be heritable since they had had to be taken to pieces in order to be removed and had then been sold as old lead. . .
Cited – In re De Falbe CA 1901
The court referred to the originally unbending rule that everything affixed to the freehold was held to go with the freehold: ‘But in modern times there have come to be important exceptions to this rule, one being in favour of trade fixtures and . .
Cited – Hellawell v Eastwood 1851
In considering whether an article was a fitting and could be removed from its locaion, the court looked to the mode and extent of annexation of the articles: ‘The only question, therefore, is, whether the machines when fixed were parcel of the . .
Cited – Bain v Brand HL 1876
The law as to fixtures is the same in Scotland as in England. There were two general rules under the comprehensive term of fixtures: ‘One of these rules is the general well-known rule that whatever is fixed to the freehold of land becomes part of . .
Cited – Dixon v Fisher HL 12-Jun-1845
Lord Cockburn said ‘no man can make his property real or personal by merely thinking it so.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158890

London Borough of Hackney v Ekinci: CA 24 May 2001

The applicant and his seventeen year old wife became homeless. They claimed housing assistance on the ground that the wife was a dependant child.
Held: The authority succeeded. Though persons aged between 16 and 18 in full time education could, under the rules, be treated as dependent children according to the circumstances, the priority under the statute was aimed at protecting those in the relationship of parent and child. The fact that a person also fell within a definition under the code of practice could not displace that.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 776

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147563

Marshall 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 secure tenancy revived automatically once it could be seen that the suspended possession order was under its own terms no longer enforceable and (3) whether the district council had waived any right to rely upon the tenants’ failure to comply with the conditions in the possession order.
Held: It was not open to a landlord to waive breaches of an order so as to resuscitate the original tenancy. There had to be an application to the court. ‘The power to discharge or rescind the order of possession, conferred by section 85 (4) of 1985 Act, is a power which can only be exercised in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time’. The reference to ‘conditions’ in s.85(4) was a reference to the conditions (as varied from time to time under s.85(3)) upon which the order for possession was suspended.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Schiemann LJ and Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 594, (2002) HLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85(3) 85(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147520

Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another: CA 21 Dec 2000

The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 357, (2001) EGCS 4, (2001) LGR 228, [2001] 33 HLR 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lippiatt and Febry v South Gloucestershire County Council CA 31-Mar-1999
The defendant had failed to remove travellers who had encamped on its land and caused nuisances against neighbouring farmers.
Held: The court refused to strike out a claim in nuisance by neighbouring land owners. It was arguable that a land . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Rich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
Cited – Ayers v Hanson, Stanley and Prince 1912
. .
Cited – Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan HL 24-Jun-1940
Occupier Responsible for Nuisance in adopting it
A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Cited – Elizabeth v Rochester City Council CA 26-Apr-1993
. .
Cited – Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council CA 14-May-1998
It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the . .
Cited – Dennett v Atherton 1872
The covenant for quiet enjoyment cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose. . .
Cited – Sanderson v Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation 1884
The Corporation let a farm to Sanderson. It reserved in favour of Cairns, another tenant farmer, the rights to use a drain across one of Sanderson’s fields and to enter and repair it. Water discharged by Cairns leaked through the drain and flooded . .
Cited – Kenny v Preen 15-Oct-1962
A landlord’s threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was held to be a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court explained that ‘the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation of . .
Cited – McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth CA 1988
The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Nuisance

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147390

Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt: CA 1 Feb 2001

The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the defendant was 80% liable for the injury. Where a defect in premises led to a tenant’s injury, it was not necessary to show that the landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. If the landlord had failed to take the reasonable care which could have been expected of him to ensure the tenants personal safety, he could be liable. The purpose of the 1972 Act was to break away from the historic limitations placed by the common law upon the duty/liability of a landlord to persons injured as a result of defects in the condition of premises owned by him.
‘The judge was in error in equating the task of the claimant, as tenant, in establishing a breach of duty under s.4 of the 1972 Act, with his need under s.11 of the 1985 Act to demonstrate notice (actual or constructive) of the actual defect giving rise to the injury. The question the judge should have asked himself was whether, in the light of the findings of fact which he had made, the first defendant had, by his failure to service the gas fire regularly or at all, or otherwise to take steps to check or make appropriate enquiries of the tenant as to the servicing and/or state of the gas fire during the eight-year period before the claimant’s accident, failed in his duty to take such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the claimant was reasonably safe from injury. ‘

Judges:

Potter LJ, Hale LJ, Butler-Sloss P

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 167, [2001] 3 WLR 62, [2001] NPC 26, [2001] L and TR 40, (2001) 33 HLR 80, (2001) 82 P and CR DG9, [2001] 17 EG 221, [2001] 1 EGLR 53, [2001] QB 1014, (2001) 82 P and CR 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 4, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sykes v Harry CA 14-Oct-1998
The plaintiff sought damages against the defendant after he was severely injured by inhaling carbon monoxide fumes whilst a tenant of the defendant. The defendant sought to strike out the claim, saying that the plaintiff had himself maintained the . .
Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society Plc CA 3-Aug-1995
A landlord became in breach of his duty of repair under his covenant immediately the repairable defect occurred, not after a reasonable time had been given to make the repair. Nourse LJ summarised the earlier authorities: ‘It is now established by a . .
Cited – McGreal v Wake 1984
A landlord has the right to enter his premises for the purpose of carrying out the work required under his covenant for repair. . .
Cited – McCarrick v Liverpool Corporation HL 1947
Premises’ Defect – No Notice Liability on L
The tenant’s wife was injured falling from defective stone steps leading from the kitchen to the back kitchen of the house. Under section the 1936 Act, the judge found the house not to have been kept in the state required. No notice of want of . .
Cited – Cavalier v Pope HL 22-Jun-1906
The wife of the tenant of a house let unfurnished sought to recover from the landlord damages for personal injuries arising from the non-repair of the house, on the ground that the landlord had contracted with her husband to repair the house.

Cited by:

Cited – Clark and Another (Executors of Peggy Eileen Clark Deceased) v Revenue and Customs SCIT 27-Sep-2005
SCIT INHERITANCE TAX – business relief – company actively managing properties and carrying out its own building and maintenance work – whether its business consists wholly or mainly of making or holding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Torts – Other

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147417

Crawley Borough Council v Bliss: CA 22 Feb 2000

A local authority refused the applicants application for emergency housing as a homeless person. On the review of that decision the authority concluded that she did have priority need, but then decided that the application should be refused because it found she was intentionally homeless. The decision was a public law decision, but this did not mean that a decision once made could not necessarily be revisited. The new grounds could not be ignored, and the factual conclusions could not be challenged. An appeal to the county court raised the question of whether the whole circumstances justified a relief in public law, and a new ground for refusal arising upon such a revisiting of the decision could only be ignored on public law grounds.

Judges:

Buxton, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-2000, Times 28-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 50, (2000) 32 HLR 636

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Griffiths 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 . .
Cited – Slater 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 . .
Cited – F v Birmingham City Council CA 2-Nov-2006
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person with her children. The authority found her in priority need, but intentionally homeless. Her appeal against the adverse review failed, and she appealed again. She had given up a council flat and had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147083

Laimond Properties Limited and Christina Raeuchle: CA 18 Aug 1999

Application for leave to appeal granted.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2092

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Laimond Properties Limited v Al-Shakarchi CA 10-Feb-1998
If ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ was offered in exchange for a protected tenancy, the court need look only for some security for the tenant, not that he should receive equal protection. Where the landlord persuades the Rent Act protected . .

Cited by:

Application for leave – Laimond Properties Ltd v Raeuchle CA 24-Jan-2000
The landlord acquired the freehold of a small block of flats in 1993. The defendant had been a tenant protected under the Rent Acts since 1976. He also made use of a neighburing empty room without paying rent. His rent was nearly all paid through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147007

Edith Cray-Tyler Jean Valerie Jones v Michael Christian (Aka Bernard): CA 5 Aug 1999

The tenant sought leave to appeal out of time against an order for possession for arrears of rent.
Held: The judge had heard the evidence. This was an issue of fact and there was insufficient to suggest that he may have been mistaken to justify any further hearing.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146984

Guy Rogers v London Borough of Islington: CA 30 Jul 1999

A house had ten bedrooms. One was retained by the owner for use some two months a year, the other nine were let to people in their twenties who had just completed their further education and were embarking on careers in the professions or banking and who on average stayed for two years.
Held: The ruse of calling the letting of a house a residential club was ineffective to prevent the house becoming a house in multiple occupancy. The need for statutory control for safety reasons was overwhelming. Multiple occupancy is not capable of full definition, but one test was whether a relationship existed between those living in the house which brought them together.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Sep-1999, Times 30-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2046, [1999] 3 EGLR 17, (1999) 32 HLR 138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part XI

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barnes v Sheffield City Council CA 1995
A group of five students was held to form a single household. The court identified the factors to assist in identifying whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not: the origin of the tenancy; whether the residents arrived in a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another Admn 25-Mar-2002
The landowner sought to use houses as temporary accommodation for young people in need. The council asserted that this use of each of the properties was ‘use as a dwelling house by the residents living together as a single household’ under class C3. . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Hossack, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146961

North 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 incorporated a version of the Housing Act before its amendment to allow possession on such a ground.
Held: The agreement was to be interpreted as referring to the Act from time to time. The appeal failed.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2021

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Harassment Act 1997, Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Harrison v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council CA 1981
The court considered the relationship between statutory provisions and the terms of a tenancy agreement.
Held: Brandon LJ said: ‘In the various Housing and rent Acts the legislature did not seek to interfere with the common law principles on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146936

London Borough of Southwark v Sarfo: CA 19 Jul 1999

The tenant sought to set aside a warrant for possession after it had been executed.
Held: The tenant would have succeeded in setting aside the execution of the possession warrant but for her delay in applying to the court and the fact that by then the premises had been demolished. The basis of her case was described as ‘maladministration’, ‘… the enforcement of the execution of this warrant was a use of an order made by the county court in a way which was manifestly unfair.’

Judges:

Roch LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146795

Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Muriqi Kujtim (2): CA 9 Jul 1999

Having provided accommodation after assessing the applicant as being in urgent need of housing, the authority’s duties to the applicant were discharged, either by the refusal of reasonable offers of accommodation, or having been accommodated, if the applicant was then evicted for violent refusal to comply with reasonable requirements for the occupation of that accommodation.

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999, Times 05-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1804

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146719

Godson v London Borough of Enfield: CA 22 Mar 2019

The court as asked: ‘i) If a local housing authority purports to discharge its duty to a homeless person such as to terminate that duty, and the homeless person does not appeal against an unsuccessful review of that decision; is he entitled to challenge the lawfulness of that review decision on a subsequent application for assistance as a homeless person?
ii) If so, was the housing authority entitled to terminate its duty in the manner in which it purported to do?
iii) If the termination of the housing duty and the homeless person’s consequent eviction was caused by the homeless person’s refusal of an offer of temporary accommodation, is he thereby rendered intentionally homeless?’

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 486

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634817

Minchburn v Fernandez (No 2): CA 1986

The issue of the reasonableness of the court making an order for possession had not been fully explored at the trial.
Held: The judgment was a nullity. The landlord’s reason for wanting possession might be relevant also.

Citations:

(1986) 19 HLR 29, [1986] 2 EGLR 103, [1986] 280 EG 223

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.246046

Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Newham ex parte Ojuri: CA 23 Nov 1998

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Morritt LJ, Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1822

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Newham Borough Council ex parte Ojuri (No 5) Admn 11-Sep-1998
. .
See Also – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Newham (No 3) ex parte Ojuri Admn 9-Jul-1998
When making decisions about the form of interim housing to be provided under the homelessness provisions, the authority should pay heed to the statutory Code of Practice. Bed and breakfast accommodation was wrong for a family with children. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145301

Regina (McDonagh) v Salisbury District Council: QBD 5 Jul 2001

A local authority granted the applicant an introductory tenancy, but then gave notice of its intention to issue possession proceedings in the light of tenancy breaches. The tenant requested a review, and the date was set, but this was later than the date upon which the possession proceedings were to begin. He alleged that the review was nullified by that fact. The review was defective, but the Act provided for no consequences to flow from such a breach. In such cases, the tenant could apply for the warrant for possession to be stayed pending the outcome of the review, and that was adequate to cure the failure.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 567

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 72), Housing Act 1996 129 (6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159488

Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark ex parte Campisi: CA 9 Jul 1998

The claimant had made more than one application for emergency housing.
Held: ‘Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant’s claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and considering the case afresh’ A fresh claim attracts all the substantive and procedural consequences of an initial claim whereas a repetitious claim does not. The authority may start with the assumption that the first decision as to suitability was correct and then go on to consider whether, disregarding material which is insignificant or incredible or which was available to the applicant at the time of the determination of his first claim, the new material placed in front of the local authority gives reason to believe that the decision as to homelessness ought to be reversed. This process inevitably involves making a judgment as to the significance and credibility of the new material. A local authority’s decision that there has been no material change in circumstances can only be challenged on Wednesbury grounds.

Judges:

Schiemann, Gibson and Mummery LJJ

Citations:

(1998) 31 HLR 560, [1998] EWCA Civ 1188, [1998] 2 All ER 939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Griffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark Admn 29-Oct-2004
The applicant had sought emergency housing with her husband, but refused accomodation on a particuar estate for her safety. She had then been evicted form the temporary housing supplied on the application. After a series of temporary arrangements . .
Cited – Regina (Fatima Jeylani) v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2002
A declaration was granted requiring the local authority to consider the further homelessness application after the authority had followed the approach in Campisi and in consequence, it had refused to consider a further homelessness application of . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144667

Regina (Cumpsty) v The Rent Service: QBD 8 Nov 2002

The claimant sought to challenge the way the respondent selected the local reference rent.
Held: The determination of the rent was a determination of the civil rights and obligations, of the tenant and of the landlord, and the claimant was entitled to a fair trial. However the Rent Officer was an independent and impartial tribunal, and, provided the Officer gave sufficient reasons for his decision, the procedure did not infringe the claimant’s human rights.

Judges:

Pichford J

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6, Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 No 1984)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.178326

Regina 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 of State.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim they automatically qualify under section 21(1)(a). They can claim as result of the 1996 Act that as a result of their predicament after they arrive in this country reach a state where they qualify under the subsection because of the effect upon them of the problems under which they are labouring. In addition to the lack of food and accommodation is to be added their inability to speak the language, their ignorance of this country and the fact they have been subject to the stress of coming to this country in circumstances which at least involve their contending to be refugees. Inevitably the combined effect of these factors with the passage of time will produce one or more of the conditions specifically referred to in section 21(1)(a). It is for the authority to decide whether they qualify. In making their decision, they can bear in mind the wide terms of the Direction which gives a useful introduction to the application of the subsection. The authorities can anticipate the deterioration which would otherwise take place in the asylum seekers condition by providing assistance under the section. They do not need to wait until the health of the asylum seeker has been damaged.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Woolf), Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Henry

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1032, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997) 1 CCLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
Cited – Rands v Oldroyd 1959
The ejusdem generis rule is, at best, a very secondary guide to the meaning of a statute. The all-important matter is to consider the purpose of the statute. A statute preventing a civil servant contracting for his employers with a company in which . .
Cited – Quazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141428

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Beechwood Park Residents Association: UTLC 1 Feb 2018

PARK HOMES – WATER CHARGES – whether first-tier tribunal has jurisdiction to determine breach of Water Resale Order 2006 – estimated charges based on previous year resulting in overpayment recouped in subsequent year – whether in breach of Order – whether repayment to be ordered – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 30 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Utilities, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.623924

Bardrick v Haycock, Vernon and Robinson: CA 1976

The court considered the purpose of excluding from protection properties with a resident landlord. Scarman LJ: ‘ . . the mischief at which the section was aimed was the mischief of that sort of social embarrassment arising out of close proximity – close proximity which the landlord had accepted in the belief that he could bring it to an end at any time allowed by the contract of tenancy.’ A good test for whether they were separate was whether there were two front doors.

Judges:

Scarman LJ

Citations:

(1976) 2 HLR 118

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.245817

Goodger v London Borough of Ealing: CA 17 Jan 2002

The claimant authority sought leave to appeal refusal of a possession order after the was said to have broken a term of his tenancy by allowing the sale of cannabis in the house. The judge had found a breach of natural justice when the authority had made its file available for inspection only six days before the hearing.
Held: Leave was granted. The case was arguable, and guidance was necessary.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 36

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Grant of Leave – Goodger v London Borough of Ealing CA 23-Apr-2002
The claimant had sought housing as a homeless person. The authority rejected his claim saying that he was intentionally homeless, having lost his previous accomodation having grown cannabis there breaching his tenancy. The authority appealed an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.216701

Regina v Newham Borough Council ex parte Ojuri (No 5): Admn 11 Sep 1998

Judges:

David Pannick QC

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 880, (1998) 31 HLR 631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Newham (No 3) ex parte Ojuri Admn 9-Jul-1998
When making decisions about the form of interim housing to be provided under the homelessness provisions, the authority should pay heed to the statutory Code of Practice. Bed and breakfast accommodation was wrong for a family with children. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Newham ex parte Ojuri CA 23-Nov-1998
. .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.139001

Regina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee: Admn 4 May 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of ‘once an assured tenancy, always an assured . .
Appeal from – Moore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee CA 17-Oct-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140327

A v The London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 25 May 2001

The applicant was mother of three children, two of whom were autistic. She sought re-housing from the defendant. It was claimed that s17 imposed a specific duty on the authority, having identified a child’s needs, in this case for re-housing, to satisfy them.
Held: The structure the section is general, and point very clearly to a discretion, rather than a duty, to provide accommodation in any individual case. The Act also provides a distinction between a duty to provide services and any duty to provide housing. The duties are target ones. The 1970 Act does not include a power to provide accommodation.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 376

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17, Carer’s Recognition and Services Act 1995, Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Muriqi Kujtim Admn 31-Mar-1999
A local authority’s duty to an asylum seeker to provide the basics of life, did not extend to a third re-housing attempt after the applicant had twice been evicted for the use of violence and breaches of house rules. . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Cited – Re G CA 11-Apr-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140334

Regina (Catherine Dinsdale, Caloline Wilson, Barbara Shaw, and Safina Saadat) v The Rent Service: Admn 2 Feb 2001

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 65

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Saadat) v The Rent Service CA 26-Oct-2001
When choosing an area over which comparisons of rents are to be made, the Service had to look at a locality which was no larger than was necessary to establish such a comparison. The choice of too wide an area resulted in the inclusion within the . .
Cited – Heffernan, Regina (on the Application of) v the Rent Service Admn 10-Oct-2006
The claimant sought judicial review of the redetermination of housing benefits payable in respect of two flats rented out by him. The rent office said that the regulations were merely intended to put in statute form the previous practice used when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140270