Category: Housing

Ortiz v City of Westminster: CA 1994

The applicant was a twenty four year old woman with a history of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was in fact suitable hostel accommodation available which had been offered to the applicant at the relevant time and it was hard to see why she needed the remedy of judicial review. She sought leave to appeal against rejection of her claim for judicial review of the authority’s decision not to treat her as vulnerable in her application for housing.
Held: Summarising the application: ‘The essence of her case is that once she established that she had a particular need for suitable accommodation and would suffer more than most if she failed to acquire it, then that of itself was sufficient to establish that she was vulnerable within the meaning of the legislation so as to give her a priority need.’ Approving Di Domenico: ‘In my judgment that approach is plainly right. In order to satisfy the test of vulnerability, as explained in the decision in ex parte Bowers , an applicant must in my judgment surmount two hurdles. First, he (or she) must show that to some material extent he or she is less able to obtain suitable accommodation than the ordinary person and secondly, that if he fails to obtain it, then he will suffer more than most. It is in my judgment the first of those hurdles which the applicant so conspicuously fails to surmount in the present case. The position is strikingly different from that in ex parte Bowers itself where, as the judgment recorded: ‘since the accident nobody will give him lodging …’. Here, for the reasons already indicated, there is no factual basis upon which the authority could conclude, let alone were bound to conclude, that this applicant would suffer peculiar difficulty in obtaining suitable accommodation.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1994] 27 HLR 364

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – ex parte Di Dominico 1989
The applicant was an epileptic who required careful medical supervision, but the local authority did not regard her as vulnerable for housing purposes.
Held: Review was declined. The matter was one for the authority exercising its discretion. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira CA 20-May-1998
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of . .
Doubted – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.200293

Sheffield City Council v Jepson: CA 1 Mar 1993

The tenant was subject to an agreement not to keep a dog in her flat. The judge agreed that the term was appropriate, and that the breach of the term was both open persistent and determined. Under those circumstances it was not reasonable for him to refuse an order for possession.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993, (1993) 25 HLR 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The respondent was a mutual housing co-operative, and the claimant its tenant. The tenant kept a dog in the premises without the consent of the other tenants in breach of the terms of the lease. A notice to quit was served on him. His tenancy was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89206

Taylor v Newham London Borough Council: CA 1 Mar 1993

When a tenant sought an order enforcing his right to buy his house, the judge had no discretion to refuse the order on the grounds of hardship. Once the conditions were satisfied, the tenant’s rights were absolute.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 138(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89748

Regina v Northavon District Council, ex parte Smith: CA 4 Aug 1993

A local Authority has a duty to act upon a housing request for children even though the family were intentionally homeless.

Citations:

Independent 18-Aug-1993, Times 04-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Northavon District Council ex parte Smith HL 18-Jul-1994
Local Authority is under no obligation to provide permanent housing for a family with children save as provided under the Act. The Children Act not to be used as a way around homelessness decisions and rules. A Social Services request to house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87474

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua: CA 31 Mar 1994

Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. She refused a permanent place offered to her and was evicted. She applied to Brent who concluded that her refusal of accommodation made her intentionally homeless. Brent now appealed a finding against them.
Held: It was relevant when looking at the provision of public sector housing to the homeless, that an authority had previously accepted her as unintentionally homeless. It could not be assumed she would reject any offer made. Nevertheless Brent had to make its own assessment. It had asked itself the correct questions, not only whether she had acted reasonably in failing to accept an offer, but also whether the temporary accommodation was suitable. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Dillon, Leggatt, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Independent 31-Mar-1994, Times 26-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86190

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte MacWan: CA 6 Apr 1994

A Local Authority may delay the grant of permanent accommodation to await the expiry of a short term lease. Leggatt LJ said that accommodation under section 65(2) ‘does have to be secured without limit of time and so . . be indefinite.’ Dillon LJ said that ‘the accommodation to satisfy the council’s duty must . . be ‘permanent’ in the sense in which that term is used in the cases.’
Final permanent housing may be properly achieved after several temporary accommodations.

Judges:

Leggatt, Dillon LJJ

Citations:

Independent 15-Apr-1994, Times 06-Apr-1994, (1994) 26 HLR 528

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86193

City of Bradford Metropolitan Council v McMahon and McMahon: CA 21 Apr 1993

The right to buy a council house is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental, and that right disappears on the death of the tenant because there was no secure tenancy left upon which to base the right: ‘It is a creature of statute and is sui generis; if it is helpful to equate it to some more general right recognised by the courts I would prefer to describe it as analogous to a personal equity.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

Independent 21-Apr-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 52, (1993) 25 HLR 534

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 121 ff

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zionmor v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Islington CA 10-Oct-1997
The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Land

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79145

O, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Oct 2019

Claim for judicial review of what is alleged by the Claimant to be the Defendant’s historic and continuing unlawful failure to provide suitable accommodation to her and to her two young children.

Judges:

Deputy Judge Mathew Gullick

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2734 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.642714

Regina v Rent Officer of Kensington and Chelsea, Ex Parte Hartley: QBD 22 Mar 2001

The landlord applied to register a fair rent. The tenant resisted the claim, saying that the forms had not been correctly completed, answering questions by reference to other documents. The application form was not satisfactorily completed, but not so as to make it invalid. The landlord had intended to answer the questions. The questionaire gave the tenant enough information to allow him to know how to challenge the application, and he had not been prejudiced.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88593

Ngnoguem v Milton Keynes Council: CA 19 Mar 2021

This appeal raises two related points of law. First, where an applicant who is dissatisfied with a decision made pursuant to s. 184 of the Housing Act 1996 requests a review of that decision pursuant to s. 202 of the Act, what is the legal status of the requested decision if the authority issues and notifies the applicant of the Review Decision outside the time specified by applicable regulations? Second, where a Review Decision has been issued and notified to the applicant late, is it open to the applicant to commence an appeal to the County Court against the original s. 184 Decision relying upon the terms of s. 204(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1996?

Judges:

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.659903

MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 21 Feb 2014

The claimants were in recipet of housing benefit. They claimed that the new benefits cap (‘bedroom tax’) discriminated against them when additional space was need for the care of family members with disabilities

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Longmore and Ryder LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 13, [2014] WLR(D) 87, [2014] PTSR 584

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Benefits

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.521626

Elrify v City of Westminster Council: CA 23 Mar 2007

The court considered what was to happen when a person in overcrowded accommodation sought rehousing: ‘Part 10 of the 1985 Act concerns overcrowding. Its pivotal provision is section 327 which provides that, subject to some exceptions, the occupier of a dwelling who causes or permits it to be overcrowded commits a summary offence. It is perhaps a little surprising to find ministerial guidance to the effect that it may be reasonable to occupy accommodation when by reason of overcrowding the occupier commits an offence. But that is how it appears the ministerial guidance is.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 332

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.251442

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 that he did not have protection under the 1977 Act.
Held: Protection under the 1954 Act continued only whilst the premises were being used for business purposes, and once that use ended the protection ended also. The 1977 Act required that to have protection, the premises had to be when originally let, let as a dwelling, and it excluded from protection any premises to which the 1954 Act applied. At the time when it was let, the lease was protected under the 1954 Act which precluded at that time protection under the 1977 Act, and that latter protection could not be acquired later.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Thomas LJ, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 30, [2007] 1 WLR 1628

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 23(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Hicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
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 – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
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 . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Appeal From – 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 – 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 – Levermore v Jobey CA 1956
Danckwerts LJ said: ‘A lease is not intended to be either a mental exercise or an essay in literature: it is a practical document dealing with a practical situation.’ . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – 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: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.248345

The London Borough of Hackney v Sareen: CA 19 Mar 2003

The applicant had been found to be homeless, and not intentionally so, and entitled to housing assistance. He requested a review of a decision of the local authority not to refer his application for housing assistance to another authority.
Held: The power to require a review was intended to protect an applicant for housing assistance against decisions which would move him from authority to authority against his will. It was not intended to allow him to control where he lived, using the authority as a search agent. If he wanted to be housed in another local authority he must move there first. There was no jurisdiction to require a review.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Chadwick

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 351, Times 09-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.180336

Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council v O’Sullivan and another: CA 25 Mar 2003

The council granted a tenancy to the husband many years ago. At various times the couple split up then came back together. The husband was rehoused, but at the time misled the council to say his wife was not living in the flat. When the council sought a possession order, she alleged the action was discriminatory, and breached her right to respect for private and family life.
Held: At the time, it was common practice to grant a tenancy in the name of one spouse (the husband). The parties lived separate lives, even if in the same house. If it had know of the misrepresentation the council would not have transferred the tenancy for the husband. The council acted on the basis of the facts known to it. The decision was reasonable and the possession order stood. The husband had not been treated differently than she would have been.

Judges:

Aldous, Waller, Arden LJJ

Citations:

Times 27-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 371

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.180102

Lin, (Regina on the Application of) v London Borough of Barnet: CA 22 Feb 2007

The claimant challenged the authority’s housing policy which sought to implement national guidelines awarding points to housing applicants and allocating housing accordingly. He said it did not give adequate protection to the homeless.
Held: The scheme did give some preference to homeless people, and the form of implementation of the national policy was within a range of discretion for the authority. Though the scheme appeared in most respects to comply, a figure of 300 points was available for award but this was not properly explained as part of the policy. This was potentially such a significant element that the absence of an explanation undermined the validity of the scheme. The applicant’s appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Hallett LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 167(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lin, Hassan v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 11-May-2006
The Authority had established a scheme under section 167 for the allocation of its housing accomodation. . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v A CA 23-Jul-2002
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alam v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Jan-2009
The claimant sought to challenge the defendant’s housing allocation policy. He said that as a homeless person he should have been given a reasonable preference for housing. The authority said he was not in priority need, and that the temporary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.248991

Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor: QBD 1998

Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend it.’

Judges:

Tucker J

Citations:

(1998) 31 HLR 923

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 204(2A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed QBD 26-Mar-2019
The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested . .
Cited – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.647071

Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: CA 30 Jan 2020

‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness provisions of that Act, in circumstances where the reason put forward for the delay is that the applicant was unrepresented and was seeking legal aid.’

Judges:

David Richards, Phillips LJJ, Sir Stephen Richards

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 51, [2020] WLR(D) 56

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 204(2A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Appeal from – London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed QBD 26-Mar-2019
The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested . .
Cited – Emambee v London Borough of Islington QBD 25-Oct-2019
. .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor QBD 1998
Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.646809

London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed: QBD 26 Mar 2019

The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested a review of that decision. The decision on the review / upheld the original decision. His notice requesting a further review was out of time, and refused on that basis. He challenged that refusal in the County Court who found good reason. The Council now appealed.
Held: The judge had misdirected himself. The mere fact that a person is unrepresented could not amount to a good reason for delay in bringing an appeal: ‘It is clear, therefore, that the fact that a party is not professionally represented could play only a very limited, if any, part in the assessment of whether or not there was good reason for a departure from the time limit in bringing the appeal in cases of this sort.’ and: Having examined the particular circumstances of the present case I am unable to conclude that the Respondent had good reason for the issuing of the appeal out of time for all of the reasons which I have already given. Against the backdrop of the authorities of Hysaj and Kigen I am unable to conclude that Mr O’Sullivan’s point in relation to costs protection from the grant of Legal Aid adds materially to the considerations in the present case.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Dove

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 749 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor QBD 1998
Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.635967

Emambee v London Borough of Islington: QBD 25 Oct 2019

Judges:

Mr Justice Stewart

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2835 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.643112

London Borough of Lambeth v A: CA 23 Jul 2002

The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot secure that the necessary head start is given’. A policy was irrational if it did not contain ‘a mechanism for identifying those with the greatest need and ensuring that so far as possible and subject to reasonable countervailing factors (for example, past failure to pay rent etc) they are given priority.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1084, [2002] HLR 57, [2002] All ER (D) 324

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Ashley 1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Lin, (Regina on the Application of) v London Borough of Barnet CA 22-Feb-2007
The claimant challenged the authority’s housing policy which sought to implement national guidelines awarding points to housing applicants and allocating housing accordingly. He said it did not give adequate protection to the homeless.
Held: . .
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 – 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 – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA 20-Oct-2009
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.178082

Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another: ChD 30 Nov 2000

An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.78573

Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex Parte Sadiq: QBD 27 Jul 2000

A housing authority which had made a decision that it had a duty to provide accommodation, could not revisit that decision once it became aware of a change of circumstances. At the time of the decision the applicant had his son living with him. After the decision but before being housed, the child was ordered to return to his mother. The applicant need not proceed by a review of the authority’s second decision.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000, Gazette 20-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.85142

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney: Admn 15 Feb 2012

Application for judicial review brought by Mrs Anne McDonagh, who challenges the policy of the defendant, the London Borough of Hackney (‘Hackney’) in respect of the allocation of pitches on sites authorised and designated for use by the travelling community.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 373 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452683

Dyson v Kerrier District Council: CA 1980

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

Judges:

Brightman LJ

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.443223

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 order which said it had breached natural justice by not providing its file for inspection until a few days before the hearing.
Held: The claimant had known the detail of the representations he wished t make, and had not been prejudiced. The authority was bound to come to the conclusion it had in fact reached, and the appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 751

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Housing

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.217043

C James and Sons v Puglia: CA 19 Feb 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1051

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Puglia v C James and Sons EAT 24-Oct-1995
The EAT considered the effect of the receipt of benefits during a period of sickness when calculating loss of earnings, and whether a hearing was properly conducted without the presence of the parties.
Held: There is no procedural irregularity . .
See Also – C James and Sons v Puglia EAT 15-Jan-1992
The claimant had been made redundant after many years. He had worked for a farming partnership, and there had been recent changes in the partnership constitution. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Housing

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.141447

Nutting v Southern Housing Group Ltd: ChD 21 Dec 2004

The deceased tenant and the appellant had lived together in a violent alcoholic homosexual relationship. The appellant had claimed to have succeeded to the tenancy on his partner’s death. The authority said the relationship had been at an end, and no succession took place.
Held: The appellant had failed to demonstrate that his relationship with the deceased displayed a sufficient commitment to permanence to meet the test required for a succession.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-2005, [2004] EWHC 2982 (Ch), [2005] HLR 25, [2005] 2 P and CR 14, [2005] Fam Law 210, [2005] 1 FLR 1066

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Helby v Rafferty CA 1979
The court declined to hold that a man who had lived with a woman tenant for five years before her death were part of the same family because they had deliberately opted to retain their formal independence and they had not been recognised as being . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Chios Property Investment Ltd v Lopez 1987
When asked to consider whether a person cohabiting with a tenant before his death, and seeking a statutory tenancy after his death, the court stressed the importance of a ‘sufficient state of permanence and stability’ having been reached in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.220581

N and D (London) Ltd v Gadson: 1991

What happens at the end of the fixed period tenancy is the creation of a new and distinct statutory tenancy, rather than, for example, the continuation of the tenant’s previous status.

Citations:

(1991) 24 HLR 64

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues CA 14-Jun-2013
The Defendant took an assured shorthold tenancy of premises from the Claimant for a fixed term of one year less one day, paying a deposit of a month’s rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement at that time. At the expiry of the fixed term, by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.545135

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 was worded to create a lease for life (applying the LRB case).
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. Despite the agreement being from month to month, it was clearly intended only to be determinable under the relative provisions. A periodic tenancy with an invalid fetter on the landlord’s right to determine should be treated in the same way as a tenancy for a fixed, if indeterminate, term. The Occupancy Agreement took effect as a lease for 90 years, determinable by Mexfield only on one month’s notice on Ms Berrisford’s death or in accordance with the provisions of clause 6 of the Occupancy Agreement.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson

Citations:

[2011] NPC 115, [2011] 46 EG 105, [2011] 3 WLR 1091, [2011] UKSC 32, UKSC 2010/0167, [2012] 1 AC 955, [2012] PTSR 69, [2011] 3 EGLR 115, [2012] L and TR 7, [2012] 1 P and CR 8, [2012] 1 All ER 1393, [2012] HLR 15

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1922 145, Law of Property Act 1925 1(1) 205(1)(xxvii) 149(6), Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instance – Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Berrisford ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant appealed against refusal of a summary order for possession of the defendant tenant’s house for arrears of rent. The arrears arose through delay in payment of Housing Benefit, and all arrears had been cleared by the hearing of the . .
Appeal from – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co- Operative Ltd CA 15-Jul-2010
The Society ran a mortgage rescue scheme, buying properties from borrowers unable to maintain mortgage repayments, and letting them back. As a co-operative, the former owners would become members. Because it was a mutual housing co-operative, the . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and Others HL 16-Jul-1992
The parties signed a memorandum of agreement to let a strip of land from 1930 until determined as provided, but the only provision was that the lease would continue until the land was needed for road widening and two months’ notice was given. The . .
Cited – In re Midland Railway Co’s Agreement, Charles Clay and Sons Ltd v British Railways Board CA 1971
The lease agreement created a term for six months from 10 June 1920 and was to continue from half year to half year until determined. It was to be determined by three months’ written notice given by either party to the other provided that the . .
Cited – Say v Smith 1563
A lease for a term certain purported to add a term which was uncertain.
Held: The lease was valid only as to the certain term. Anthony Brown J said:’Every contract sufficient to make a lease for years ought to have certainty in three . .
Cited – The Bishop of Bath’s Case CCP 1572
A Lease was made to A and B for 60 years, with a clause of re-entry immediately after the deaths of A and B and of the longer liver of them within the term. After the death of A within the term another lease of the same lands was made to C habendum . .
Cited – Burgh v Potkyn 1522
The court originated the concept in law of a periodic tenancy. . .
Cited – John Taylor v Mary Seed In Ejectment 1724
The plaintiff’s lessor had leased a house in London to the defendant for seven years, and, after the seven expired, had accepted a quarter’s rent, whereby a tenancy at will was created; and it was proved by an ancient city-book in French (called . .
Cited – Doe dem Warner v Browne 1807
The parties agreed a lease at a rent of andpound;40 per annum. The landlord was not to raise the rent nor turn out the tenant ‘so long as the rent is duly paid quarterly, and he does not expose to sale or sell any article that may be injurious to W . .
Cited – Browne v Warner 23-Jul-1807
. .
Cited – Lace v Chantler CA 1944
The freeholder purported to let the house to the tenant ‘for the duration of the war’
Held: The term was uncertain, and therefore no lease was created.
Lord Green MR said: ‘The intention was to create a tenancy and nothing else. The law . .
Cited – Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (2) CA 25-Feb-1988
Various leases of properties had been granted. Legal and General occupied the property under an arrangement under which they paid no rent. The landlord sought possession, saying that the agreements were licences not tenancies because of the absence . .
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 – Breams Property Investment Co Ltd v Stroulger CA 1948
An agreement by a landlord in a periodic tenancy not to serve notice to quit for three years unless it required the premises for its own use was valid.
Scott LJ said: ‘The phrase ‘subject-matter of the lease’ was, as we know, substituted for . .
Cited – Kusel v Watson CA 1879
A tenant in the house let it to K at a fixed rent, with a lease at the same rent ‘at any period he may feel disposed’ and more not to molest or disturb him or raise his rent after Kusel had spent money to improve the house. K spent the money and now . .
Cited – Bass Holdings Ltd v Lewis CA 29-Jul-1986
The appellant, Mr Lewis had been granted a tenancy by the appellant on its standard terms. Notice was given to terminate the tenancy. The tenant appealed against a ruling that he had not acquired a tenaancy for 90 years under the 1925 Act.
Cited – Milmo v Carreras CA 1946
Privity of estate between the assignee and the lessor creates liability in the lessor only in respect of covenants which run with the land.
What was plainly stated and understood by the parties to be an underlease operated as an assignment of . .
Cited – In Re Carne’s Settled Estates 1899
A right to occupy for life, arising by settlement gives to the occupier an equitable interest in the land. . .
Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL 24-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
Cited – Redpath v White 1737
The court considered the status of a lease of indefinte term. . .
Cited – Crighton v Lord Air 1631
The grant of a lease was to the tenant and his heirs and successors for five years and after that a further five years and then five years for ever. The argument that the lease was a nullity because it did not say when it was to come to an end was . .
Cited – Carruthers v Irvine 1717
A lease was granted expressed to be ‘perpetually and continually as long as the grass groweth up and the water runneth down’. The grantor died and his heir sought to remove the tenant on the ground that the lease did not say when it was to come to . .
Cited – Skipton Building Society v Clayton CA 1993
The wife claimed that the husband had forged the mortgage document. The Society said that she had allowed them to believe that she had consented to the charge. Slade LJ set out the principle: ‘in a case where A, the holder of the legal estate in . .
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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Cited – Hardy and Another v Haselden and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The claimants had taken up occupation of a farm under an informal arrangement which they now said amounted to a tenancy for ther lives. The freeholder’s, personal representatives of the original grantors, appealed against a declaration accordingly. . .
Cited – Southward Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Walker and Another ChD 8-Jun-2015
The court was asked as to the nature and effect of tenancies for life granted by fully mutual housing co-operatives and in particular how they can lawfully be brought to an end and a possession order obtained. The tenants sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448291

Haq v Eastbourne Borough Council: UTLC 10 Oct 2011

COMPENSATION – prohibition order – Housing Health and Safety Rating System Regulations – category 1 hazard – flat – crowding and space – section s584A Housing Act 1985 – S.5 Land Compensation Act 1961 – Rule 4 – whether use of flat (a) contrary to law (b) detrimental to health of the occupants – nil compensation awarded

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 365 (LC), [2012] JPL 187, [2012] RVR 18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445692

Williams and Another v Hinton and Another: CA 14 Oct 2011

The appellant landlords appealed against the award of damages to their former tenants under the 1985 and 1972 Acts. The judge had proceeded to hear the case in their absence.
Held: The court considered whether the appellants should instead have applied to have the judgments set aside.

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1123

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11, Defective Premises Act 1972 4, Civil Procedure Rules 39.37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Van De Hurk v The Netherlands ECHR 19-Apr-1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent tribunal); No violation of Art. 6-1 (fair trial); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Personal Injury, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445636

DB and Others v Worcestershire County Council (Costs): Admn 27 Oct 2006

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2613 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – DB and Others v Worcestershire County Council Admn 27-Oct-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing, Contract, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.344030