Category: Housing

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 offer. Having rejected it as unsuitable, she was given notice to quit the temporary accomodation. She then applied to Brent, but they decided that she was now intentionally homeless.
Held: Lord Goff said: ”accommodation’ in section 58(1) and section 60(1) means a place which can fairly be described as accommodation (Puhlhofer) and which it would be reasonable, having regard to the general housing conditions in the local housing authority’s district, for the person in question to continue to occupy (section 58(2A) and (2B)). There is no additional requirement that it should be settled or permanent.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

[1995] UKHL 23, [1995] 3 All ER 493, [1996] 1 AC 55, [1995] 3 WLR 215, 93 LGR 581

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 62(1) 65(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v City of Westminster, Ex parte Chambers 1982
It was not possible for a local authority to say for homelessness purposes that a tenant had ceased to occupy property which she had never moved into. . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Regina v Waveney City Council, ex parte Bowers CA 25-May-1982
The applicant was an alcoholic and had in 1980 been hit by a motor vehicle and suffered a severe head injury. He sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to house him.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘The question we have to consider . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .
Cited – Regina v East Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Hunt 1985
The applicant and her child had been accepted to be in emergency housing need, and had been given temporary bedsit accomodation in a facility they owned and managed. She had a sink, cooker and fridge, and shared bathroom and toilet facilities and a . .
At First Instance – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .
Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society CA 4-Dec-2007
The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now . .
Cited – 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: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443217

Akhtar v Birmingham City Council: CA 12 Apr 2011

Appeal from an order in the County Court dismissing the appeal of the Appellant from a review decision of Birmingham City Council, pursuant to sections 202 and 203 of the Act, that the Respondent had discharged its duty to secure accommodation for the Appellant under section 193(2) of the Act. The reason given in the review decision letter was that the Respondent had discharged its duty by an offer to the Appellant which offer was refused by the Appellant on the ground that it was unsuitable.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 383, [2011] HLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442541

Suurpere v Nice and Another: QBD 27 Jul 2011

The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the landlord was orderd to pay the sum at three times the amount of the deposit. The judge had wrongly concluded that the tenancy had been validly ended and that Tiensia applied to disapply the claim.
Cox J considered compliance with the requirements under the 2004 Act in a notice: ‘Although the primary focus in the cases involving these statutory provisions has so far been on the deposit, it is clear that a landlord’s obligations under this part of the 2004 Act are twofold. Parliament regards the landlord’s obligation to provide the prescribed information as being of equal importance to his duty to safeguard the tenant’s deposit. Judges who have to determine the extent of a landlord’s compliance with these provisions will always need to consider whether the prescribed information has been supplied to the tenant, in addition to the question of protection of the deposit. The list of particulars to be provided is detailed and specific. The requirement for landlords to provide such detailed information, together with the sanction for non-compliance, demonstrate the importance attached to the giving of particulars, certified as accurate by the landlord, which will enable tenants to understand how the scheme works and how they may seek the return of their deposit.’

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2003 (QB), [2012] 1 WLR 1224, [2011] 32 EG 55, [2011] 39 EG 110, [2011] 3 EGLR 19, [2012] LandTR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 213 214, Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed information) Order 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Draycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents) QBD 12-Feb-2010
The landlord’s agent did not place the tenant’s deposit with an authorised scheme or provide the appropriate notice within the 14 days required by the 2004 Act. T sought a penalty after it had been deposited. L said that the deposit penalty could no . .
Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .
Approved – Potts v Densley and Another QBD 6-May-2011
The claimant had been a shorthold tenant. The landlord had failed to secure the deposit as required, but offered to repay it after the determination of the tenancy. The claimant now appealed against a refusal of an award of three times the deposit. . .
Cited – Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another CA 19-May-2011
Gladehurst had let the property to the two tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They paid a deposit, which it retained and never paid into the deposit scheme. The tenancy came to an end when the tenants vacated the property, after which . .

Cited by:

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

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442462

Mew and Another v Tristmire Ltd: CA 28 Jul 2011

The claimants occupied houseboats constructed from second world war landing craft supported on non-floating platforms on land let to the respondents. They held under oral tenancies which had been terminated by the respondents before possession was sought. The appellants appealed against orders finding that they were not assured tenants within the 1988 Act on the basis that the barges were not dwelling-houses.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Arden, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 912

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Pier and Harbour Order (Bembridge Harbour) Confirmation Act 1963, Housing Act 1988 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442255

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Saleh: CA 19 Nov 2019

The Court was asked whether, in conducting a review of a homelessness decision under s.202 HA 1996, the review officer must reconsider the decision in the light of all relevant circumstances at the date of the review or is limited to a reconsideration of the facts as they stood at the date of the original decision. The particular issue in this case is whether the review officer, in reconsidering a decision to provide accommodation for Mr Saleh, the respondent, and his family outside the Council’s own district, ought to have taken into account the availability as at the date of review of any suitable accommodation either within or closer to that district.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1944

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.644127

Okadigbo and Another v Chan and Another: QBD 23 Oct 2014

Appeal against a decision in an action which was brought against the appellants for possession and arrears of rent. There was a counterclaim for a penalty payment pursuant to section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004 for a failure by the respondents to the appeal, to place a rent deposit in an appropriate scheme and to provide the information prescribed by the Act at the proper time.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4729 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 214(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.553271

Sharples v Places for People Homes Ltd: CA 15 Jul 2011

The court was asked as to the effect of a person’s insolvency on the right of a landlord to obtain an order for possession of a dwelling let on an assured tenancy on the ground of rent arrears.

Judges:

Mummery, Wilson, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 813

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Insolvency

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441953

MN and Another v London Borough of Hackney: Admn 10 May 2013

Claim for judicial review of a decision of the defendant local authority to refuse to provide accommodation and support to the claimants, together with their parents, under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1205 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Housing

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.509137

Babakandi v Westminster City Council: Admn 6 Jul 2011

The claimant who the defendant accepted lived in severely overcrowded conditions with his family, said that the defendant’s allocation policy was unlawful in debarring tenants such as himself who were in rent arrears from being allocated a property, and/or that the policy was being unlawfully implemented.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1756 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 167

Housing

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441508

M, Regina (on the Application Of) v Islington and Another: Admn 5 Jun 2003

What powers do local authorities now have to provide accommodation for an adult who, not being an asylum-seeker, is unlawfully present in the United Kingdom and who is caring for a child?

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1388 (Admin), [2003] HLR 73, [2003] 2 FLR 903, [2003] Fam Law 729, [2004] ACD 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Housing, Children

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.185377

Regina (Painter) v Carmarthenshire County Council Housing Benefit Review Board; Regina (Murphy) v Westminster City Council and Others: QBD 16 May 2001

In each case a lodger had formed a relationship with his landlady, and had had moved to take up occupation with her, but after the relationship came to an end reverted to his status as lodger, and moved back to his for accommodation within the house. The rules provide that Housing Benefit is not payable where the applicant would be paying his rent to a former partner and the claim related to part of property he had formerly occupied whilst living in that relationship with that partner. The regulations were clear and effective to prevent the claims for housing benefit in this situation.

Citations:

Times 16-May-2001

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 7(1) (c) (I)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.85998

Orlic v Croatia: ECHR 21 Jun 2011

Citations:

48833/07, [2011] ECHR 974, [2011] HLR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.441130

Between Bristol City Council v Aldford Two Llp: UTLC 30 Mar 2011

UTLC HOUSING – enforcement action – category 1 hazard – RPT quashing improvement notice – whether lawful to do so – whether certain factors wrongly taken into account – hazard awareness notice as alternative – held this was the appropriate enforcement action – appeal dismissed – Housing Act 2004 ss 5, 28

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 130 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440776

Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis: CA 16 Dec 2010

Renewed application for leave to appeal against tenancy possession order. The respondent argued that as a result of his suffering Asperger’s syndrome, the court should have adjourned the proceedings to see whether he was a protected party in need of a litigation friend.
Held: The application was granted.
Rimer LJ said: ‘the problem raised by this case is as to how, once the court is possessed of information raising a question as to the capacity of a litigant to conduct the litigation, it should satisfy itself as to whether the litigant does in fact have sufficient capacity. I cannot think that the court can ordinarily, by its own impression of the litigant, safely form its own view on that.’

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1567

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Baker Tilly (A Firm) v Makar QBD 27-Mar-2013
The claimant accountants had represented the defendant in a dispute with former employees. They sought payment of their costs, but the claim was stayed until the defendant had the opportunity to to seek representation by a MacKenzie friend after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440327

Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another: CA 19 May 2011

Gladehurst had let the property to the two tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They paid a deposit, which it retained and never paid into the deposit scheme. The tenancy came to an end when the tenants vacated the property, after which deductions from the deposit were made for breaches of the cleaning and repairing covenants, with the balance then being repaid to the tenants via a bank transfer. The tenants then brought a s.214(4) claim for payment of the penal sum, the landlord having failed to comply with the relevant statutory provisions in respect of their deposit. The tenants’ claim was struck out by the District Judge on the basis that it had been made after the tenancy had come to an end and that the provisions of s.214(4) no longer applied. HH Judge Cryan allowed their appeal and restored the claim. Gladehurst now appealed. The main issue on appeal was whether, in those circumstances, the tenants were entitled to an order for payment of the penal sum under s.214(4) following the landlord’s failure to register their deposit or to pay it into the deposit scheme.
Held: The power of the Court to make an order under s.214(3) and (4) is no longer exercisable once the tenancy has come to an end. The District Judge was right to reject the tenants’ s.214(4) claim.
Patten LJ said: ‘The point is not an easy one but I have come to the conclusion that the power of the Court to make an order under s.214(3) and (4) is no longer exercisable once the tenancy has come to an end. Although s.213 makes it unlawful for a landlord to require the payment of a deposit which is not to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme and requires the landlord within 14 days of receipt of a deposit to comply with the initial requirements of such a scheme, it is important to note that no criminal penalty is imposed for non-compliance with these provisions. Instead, they are made enforceable at the option of the tenant under s.214. It is entirely a matter for him as to whether he chooses to take advantage of the provisions in s.213 which were created for his benefit.
The answer therefore to the argument that the construction of s.214 contended for by Gladehurst will encourage landlords not to comply with their legal obligations under s.213 is the same as applies to any breach by a landlord of its covenants or other obligations under the lease. The tenant always has it within his hands to secure their enforcement by the taking of proceedings. That is the remedy prescribed by s.214 of the Act and it is up to the tenant to make use of it.
Looked at in this way it is entirely understandable if some temporal limits apply to the exercise of the right of enforcement under s.214. The initial requirements of an authorised scheme are, as Mr Gannon submitted, matters to be dealt with at the inception of the lease and not later than the expiry of the term. Section 214(1), as interpreted in Tiensia, speaks in terms of these requirements not yet having been complied with and therefore carries the strong implication that the default can still be remedied. This impression is confirmed by s.214(3) which requires the Court either to order the repayment of the deposit to the applicant or to order the landlord to pay it into an authorised scheme. For the Court to have a genuine discretion to exercise both alternatives must be available. On the facts of this case, neither was. Although Judge Cryan treated the andpound;618 as part of the deposit retained by Gladehurst, it was artificial to do so. The tenants had agreed to Galdehurst retaining the andpound;618 pending the prosecution of their claim for its return which it was for them to pursue and make out. The retention was therefore consensual.
The issue raised by the landlord has also to be resolved in a case where the landlord has returned the entirety of the deposit on the termination of the lease. Mr Gannon accepted that if this were the case then no s.214 claim could be made. Section 214 envisages that it must still be open to the Court to make both a s.214(3) and a s.214(4) order. Where this is not the case neither applies.
But that argument would mean that a defaulting landlord who nevertheless was scrupulous in dealing with the deposit at the end of the lease would be in a worse position with a defaulting tenant than he would be with a tenant who observed his own covenants to the letter. If the landlord was able to refund the deposit in its entirety he would escape the consequences of s.214(4) but not if he had legitimate grounds for retaining part of it to pay for repairs.
Anomalies of this kind are avoided by reading s.214(1)(a) as meaning that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme have not been but are still capable of being complied with. This is consistent with the decision in Tiensia and is the only meaning which ties in with the two alternatives in s.214(3) continuing to be available. In practice, this means that the grounds for a s.214 application will cease to exist once the lease expires and no order under either s.214(3) or (4) can therefore be made after that date. From that moment on the application will cease to be ‘such an application’ as is described in s.214(2).’

Judges:

Carnwath, Patten LJJ, Baron J

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 604, [2011] 4 All ER 556, [2011] 2 P andCR DG17, [2011] 29 EG 90, [2011] HLR 36

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 213 214(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .

Cited by:

Cited – Suurpere v Nice and Another QBD 27-Jul-2011
The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
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.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440117

London Borough of Lambeth v Grant: CA 16 Dec 2004

The applicant was an overstaying immigrant, and was to be returned to Jamaica. She had three children, the youngest of whom had been born in England. The council sought to pay the fares to return to Jamaica for the whole family rather than to have to pay the costs of housing for them.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was imoportant to remember that the applicant and her family were here illegally, and had no right to support. The applicant could not create such a right by making an application to remain. The power to promote the family’s well being included the power to provide the fares.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Chadwick

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-2005, [2004] EWCA Civ 1711, [2005] 1 WLR 1781

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Local Government Act 2000 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Borough of Lambeth v Grant QBD 17-Jun-2004
Where a parent was to be returned to her country of origin, the local authority had no power to provide travelling expenses to the children to go with her. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.220570

H and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Ealing London Borough Council: Admn 18 Apr 2016

Challenge to the introduction by the Defendant of a significant amendment to its housing allocations policy. Until then, and with some immaterial exceptions, its available lettings were allocated by reference to Priority Bands A to D as described below, A being the highest. An applicant who fell within a particular band was ranked within it by date of entry.

Judges:

Waksman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 841 (Admin), [2016] PTSR 1546

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.562903

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 tenancy for mixed purposes falls under the protection of the Act of 1954, provided that there is continued occupation for business use, and the phrase ‘let as a dwelling’ in s.2 of the Act of 1977 means ‘let wholly or partly as a dwelling’ and so applies to premises which are let for mixed residential and business purposes. The phrase had a statutory history which implied this meaning: ‘Their meaning cannot in my view have fluctuated with the tides which have ebbed and flowed in this court in relation to the meaning of the phrase in other contexts. ‘ There was a requirement to give the tenant his article 8 rights, and ‘an interpretation of s.2 of the Act of 1977 which prohibits a landlord from exercising – otherwise than by proceedings in court – an alleged right of re-entry upon premises let for use as a dwelling as well as for business purposes is an interpretation which would be compatible with the tenant’s rights under article 8; and, by contrast, that the opposite interpretation of it would be incompatible with them.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 685, Times 17-Jul-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 2, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1915, Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939 3(3), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, European Convention on Human Rights 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such . .
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 – 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: . .
Mentioned – 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.
Mentioned – Regina v Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal Ex parte Slaughter CA 1954
. .
Mentioned – British Land Co. Ltd v Herbert Silver (Menswear) Ltd CA 1958
The court may look to the circumstances surrounding the grant of a lease, and then if necessary the user, to see its purpose, if it is not clear from the lease. . .
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – National Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
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 – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd HL 12-Dec-1991
Relief from forfeiture was available against a landlord who had peaceably re-entered property subject to a tenancy without a court order. Such a landlord was still ‘proceeding’ to enforce his rights of forfeiture until he obtained a judgment for . .
Cited – Farrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant CA 20-Dec-2006
The respondent had taken a tenancy of premises from the local authority. The ground floor was for use as a shop, and the first was residential. He had previously taken a licence and had refurbished the premises. The authority sold the freehold to . .
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, Human Rights

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.242218

Eat, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Newham: Admn 28 Feb 2013

Whether the Defendant local authority is obliged to provide support, including accommodation, to the Claimant and her mother pursuant to section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989, pending determination of the mother’s appeal against the refusal by the United Kingdom Border Agency acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 344 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.471299

Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the reasonableness of making a possession order, and in situations where it was enforcing a possession oder, whether it had a discretion, and how that discretion should be enforced. It was necessary to examine both whether there was an actual subjective view that a tenant was a nuisance and also whether that view was objectively justified. In each case the authority had met these requirements, and the appeals against the possession orders were dismissed. The court approved the definition of health as being ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 834, Times 27-Jul-2004, [2004] HLR 878, [2005] 1 WLR 2775, [2004] 4 All ER 21, [2005] L and TR 13, [2005] BLGR 282, (2005) 83 BMLR 175

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch2 Gr5, Disability Discrimination Act 1995 22, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
Cited – A Power v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 17-Sep-2002
EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from . .
Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Cited – Morgan v Staffordshire University EAT 11-Dec-2001
The EAT gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases where a mental impairment is alleged by a complainant. After referring to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act: ‘Accordingly, in general there will be three or possibly four routes to . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Damon Rose v Raymond Bouchet ScSf 19-May-1999
When applying the test within the section, there is a need for the alleged discriminator to show that it was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for him to hold the opinion in question: ‘In my opinion, that part of the test requires an . .
Cited – Ashworth v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2004
The responsibility of the state under article 8(1) may be engaged where an applicant is directly and seriously affected by noise pollution, even where the nuisance emanated from the activities of private individuals. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Applied – Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams CA 14-Dec-2006
Section 24 of the 1995 Act requires the court ‘(i) to identify the treatment of the disabled person that is alleged to constitute discrimination, (ii) to identify the reason for that treatment, (iii) to determine whether the reason relates to the . .
Cited – S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission CA 18-Mar-2008
The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, . .
Cited – S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission CA 18-Mar-2008
The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.198480

Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn and Others: QBD 21 Dec 2020

This appeal concerns the question whether company law relating to execution of documents applies to certain statutory notices served by a corporate landlord upon its tenants in possession proceedings.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3538 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8, Companies Act 2006 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Company

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.656953

AS v London Borough of Camden: CA 20 Apr 2011

The claimant appealed against rejection of her objection to the defendant’s decision that it had discharged its housing duties toward her.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Etherton LJ said: ‘The accommodation offered by Camden to the applicant comprised two self-contained flats, on the same floor of the building, but a short distance apart, one of which was offered for occupation by the applicant and her sister and the other by her father. On any ordinary use of language, that was not the provision of accommodation which the applicant and her father were to occupy ‘together with’ one another. They would be living close by each other, but separate from one another. No one could reasonably describe them, in such circumstances, as living ‘together with’ one another. That ordinary meaning of the legislative language is reflected in the wording of section 176(a) which refers to a ‘person who normally resides with’ the applicant. It seems reasonable to suppose that concepts of occupation by the applicant ‘together with’ another, and residence of the applicant ‘with’ that other, were intended by Parliament to have a similar meaning. It cannot be said, on any ordinary use of language, that persons living in separate self-contained flats, however close, and not sharing any communal area, are residing together.’

Judges:

Jacob, Wilson, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 463, [2011] PTSR 1695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sharif v The London Borough of Camden SC 20-Feb-2013
The council appealed against a decision that having found Ms Sharif to be homeless, they had a duty also to house her sick father and sister as family members in one accomodation unit.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded (Lord Kerr . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434843

Faarah, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark: Admn 19 Mar 2008

The court was asked as to the allocation of accommodation by a local housing authority. Has the priority date in the Band in which the Claimant has been placed for housing allocation been arrived at unlawfully? Is the Defendant’s scheme by which applicants bid for accommodation unlawfully random and arbitrary

Judges:

Mackie QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 529 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.343934

Bradshaw v Baldwin-Wiseman: 1985

When a landlord seeking possession of property subject to a statutory tenancy had failed to give the required written notice, the court could look to all the circumstances to decide whether that failure was to be forgiven and possession ordered.

Citations:

[1985] 17 HLR 260

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Minority preferred – Fernandes v Pavardin CA 1982
The tenancy was granted as a protected tenancy under the 1977 Act. Before the grant L mentioned, but not in writing, that she might need the flat in the future for a member of her family. She now sought possession for a tenancy for her son. At first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.260335

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead v Hemans: CA 2 Mar 2011

The Council appealed against judgment in favour of the applicants who had challenged the Council’s review of their application for assistance as homeless people.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt, Toulson, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 374

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2006 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431894

Makisi v Birmingham City Council: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court considered questions arising under the review procedure applicable under homelessness provisions.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431750

Dharmaraj v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 24 Jan 2011

The claimant challenged the respondent’s finding that he had been intentionally homeless and therefore not entitled to emergency housing assistance. He said that the Authority had failed to comply with the required procedure.
Held: Toulson LJ said: ‘The modern approach towards breach of a statutory procedural requirement is to consider the underlying purpose of the requirement and whether it follows from consideration of that legislative purpose that any departure from the precise letter of the statute, however minor, should amount to the document being regarded as a nullity.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Wilson LJ, Toulson LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 312, [2011] PTSR 1523

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) FD 3-Oct-2014
Extension of Time for Parental Order
The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431239

London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc: SC 23 Feb 2011

In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the order requested. Powell had been given emergency accomodation as a homeless person, but had accrued substantial arrears. Frisby and Hall were both probationary tenants.
Held: The principle set out in Pinnock applied equally in these cases. In any case where a local authority sought to retake possession of somebody’s home, a court asked to order possession must consider the proportionality of the proposed order, provided that the tenant raises the issue of proportionality and shows that it is seriously arguable. The court must be shown a legitimate aim, including the vindication of the rights as owner, or to enable the authority to manage and fulfil its statutory duties. Save in an unusual case, the authority need not be required to particularise further its reasons.
Section 127(2) assumes the lawfulness of the proposed order, and the issue of proportionality goes as to that lawfulness.

Judges:

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Collins

Citations:

[2011] UKSC 8, UKSC 2010/0086, UKSC 2010/0111, UKSC 2010/0071, [2011] 2 All ER 129, [2011] NPC 24, [2011] 2 WLR 287, [2011] PTSR 512, [2011] HLR 23, [2011] 9 EG 164, [2011] 2 AC 186

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Housing Act 1996 127(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – 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 – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Appeal from – 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 – Paulic v Croatia ECHR 22-Oct-2009
The State re-acquired a former Yugoslavian Army flat and brought a civil action seeking the applicant’s eviction on the basis that he never obtained a specially protected tenancy under domestic law. The Croatian court ordered his eviction.
Cited – Zehentner v Austria ECHR 16-Jul-2009
ECHR The applicant’s apartment was subject to a judicial sale for non-payment of debt. She was ill, and did not participate in the sale. The local law had time limits for challenging a judicial sale, designed to . .
Cited – Cosic v Croatia ECHR 15-Jan-2009
The applicant teacher was provided a flat by her school, which it in had leased from the Yugoslavian Army. That lease expired in 1990. She remained, paying rent to the school. Ultimately the Croatian State, which had assumed ownership of Yugoslavian . .
Cited – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Sep-2008
The local authority had determined Mr McCann’s right to remain in his home by obtaining from his wife a notice to quit, the effect of which (surrendering their joint tenancy) upon him she did not understand. He said that this interfered with his . .
Cited – Gillow v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there.
Held: The house in question was the applicants’ home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not . .
Cited – Buckley v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-1996
The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the . .
Cited – Kryvitska And Kryvitskyy v Ukraine ECHR 2-Dec-2010
. .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
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 – 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 – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429724

M, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 5 Jul 2006

The court examined ‘a short but important point on the inter-relationship between the provisions of Part III of the Children Act 1989, headed ‘Local Authority Support for Children and Families’, and the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, in particular sections 188 and 189, headed ‘Interim duty to accommodate”.

Judges:

Walll LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 917, [2007] HLR 6, [2007] BLGR 127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 20, Housing Act 1996, Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – M, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham HL 27-Feb-2008
M, a girl aged 16 had become estranged from her mother, and sought housing assistance. She was not referred to the authority’s children’s services, and was not housed. The House examined the duties of local authorities under the section towards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Housing

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.242976

Stewart v Mackay: 1947

In relation to the phrase ‘the needs of the tenant and his family’ it was considered that domestic servants and even lodgers might fall within the description if they had a sufficient degree of permanence and the general relationship.

Citations:

1947 SC 287

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.215915

Ball v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council: UTLC 18 Feb 2021

HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – application by local housing authority for repayment of universal credit – whether exceptional circumstances justifying repayment of less than the full amount received – sections 45, 46 Housing and Planning Act 2016 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 42 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.658635

Roe v Russell: CA 1928

Sargant LJ said that the Rent Acts had ‘not been framed with any scientific accuracy of language.’

Judges:

Sargant LJ

Citations:

[1928] 2 KB 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Housing

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.196911

SL, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council: Admn 15 Nov 2010

Application for permission to seek judicial review of a decision in a letter from the Council’s solicitor, to refuse to accommodate the claimant pursuant to duties under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Held: The claim failed. Important as was the social work support to SL’s well being, it did not amount to ‘care and attention’ for the purposes of section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act: ‘To suggest that the claimant needs ‘looking after’ would stretch the meaning of those words beyond their proper limit. In my judgment, it would be more accurate to say that the support that the claimant needs amounts to keeping an eye on him. That is a rather different matter. It imports the notion that whilst keeping an eye on him, if circumstances change, different or further interventions might become necessary. It is not, however, in my view, care and attention.’

Judges:

Burnett J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3182 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Cited by:

Appeal from – SL v Westminster City Council and Others CA 10-Aug-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s rejection of his request for assistance under the 1948 Act. He was a failed asylum seeker, who having been destitute, had become mentally ill.
Held: The applicant’s appeal succeeded. As to . .
At first instance – 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.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427391

IA, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council (Rev 1): Admn 20 May 2013

‘ significant issue relating to the operation of the decision-making process of a local housing authority making an inquiry into applications by an homeless person for accommodation and its interim duty to accommodate in cases of apparent priority need and the role of the Administrative Court when an homeless person’s applications for a section 184 decision and for interim accommodation application pending a review are refused on allegedly irrational or unlawful grounds.’

Judges:

Judge Anthony Thornton QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1273 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.510194

Kay And Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Sep 2010

(Fourth Section) After carefully considering the various views expressed in the House of Lords in Kay v Lambeth [2006] 2 AC 465 and Doherty v Birmingham [2009] 1 AC 367, and the relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal, the EurCtHR stated, at paras 65-68, that the principles laid down in Connors v UK (2005) 40 EHRR 9 and McCann v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40 applied. In so far as the law had subsequently been developed in Doherty v Birmingham [2009] 1 AC 367, this development could not be relied on in this case.
‘The Court welcomes the increasing tendency of the domestic courts to develop and expand conventional judicial review grounds in the light of article 8. A number of their Lordships in Doherty alluded to the possibility for challenges on conventional judicial review grounds in cases such as the applicants’ to encompass more than just traditional Wednesbury grounds (see Lord Hope at para 55; Lord Scott at paras 70 and 84 to 85; and Lord Mance at paras 133 to 135 of the House of Lords judgment). However, notwithstanding these developments, the Court considers that at the time that the applicants’ cases were considered by the domestic courts, there was an important distinction between the majority and minority approaches in the House of Lords, as demonstrated by the opinions in Kay itself. In McCann, the Court agreed with the minority approach [in Kay v Lambeth [2006] 2 AC 465] although it noted that, in the great majority of cases, an order for possession could continue to be made in summary proceedings and that it would be only in very exceptional cases that an applicant would succeed in raising an arguable case which would require a court to examine the issue.’ and
‘In conclusion, the Kay applicants’ challenge to the decision to strike out their article 8 defences failed because it was not possible at that time to challenge the decision of a local authority to seek a possession order on the basis of the alleged disproportionality of that decision in light of personal circumstances. Accordingly, for the reasons given in McCann, the Court concludes that the decision by the County Court to strike out the applicant’s article 8 defences meant that the procedural safeguards required by article 8 for the assessment of the proportionality of the interference were not observed. As a result, the applicants were dispossessed of their homes without any possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal. It follows that there has been a violation of article 8 of the Convention in the instant case.’

Citations:

[2010] ECHR 1322, 37341/06

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Citing:

See Also – Kay And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Oct-2008
. .
Applied – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Applied – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Sep-2008
The local authority had determined Mr McCann’s right to remain in his home by obtaining from his wife a notice to quit, the effect of which (surrendering their joint tenancy) upon him she did not understand. He said that this interfered with his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – 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 . . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426994

Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 15 Dec 2009

‘The sole but important issue on this appeal is the meaning of ‘violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’). The question is whether, for the purposes of that provision, ‘violence’ requires some sort of physical contact or whether, in the context of ‘domestic violence’, it should be understood more widely as including abusive behaviour such as psychological, sexual or financial abuse.’

Judges:

Etherton, Waller, Laws LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1543, [2010] HLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 177(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Binding – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Danesh CA 5-Oct-2006
The tenant family appealed against a decision that the authority had no duty to rehouse them after they suffered violence. They had been living for a year in Swansea and on being granted indefinite leave to remain they were now eligible under Part . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow SC 26-Jan-2011
The appellant sought housing after leaving her home to escape domestic violence. The violence was short of physical violence, and the authority had denied a duty to rehouse her. She said that the term ‘domestic violence’ in the Act was not intended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425503

Luton Borough Council v Altavon Luton Ltd and Others: Admn 31 Jul 2019

The Council appealed by case stated from a finding that its prosecution of the defendant respondents was ut of time.
Held: The allegation in the information laid was of a continuing act.

Judges:

Nicola Davies LJ, Gross J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2415 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.642685

Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) and Others: CA 30 Jul 2010

The claimant had been a foster son and was now the administrator of the estate of the deceased tenant. He sought to occupy the property as a successor under the 1985 Act. He said that as a former foster child, he had become a member of the deceased’s family and the 1985 should be read to reflect that.
Held: The appeal failed. Ward LJ said: ‘the words ‘a person is a member of another’s family within the meaning of this Part if . . ‘ are to be construed to mean that he is only a member of the family if he can bring himself within its ambit. Thus ‘child’ must be limited to the closed categories stipulated in section 113(2), namely blood relationships, step children and illegitimate children. When Parliament wished to extend the meaning to cover de facto relationships, it did so expressly, for example, by defining ‘spouse or civil partner’ to include those who live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners. Absent such amplification there is in our judgment no room for extending the meaning of a ‘child’ to cover a foster child. This definition of the terms distinguishes the Housing Act cases from the Rent Act cases and the flexibility afforded by Fitzpatrick does not apply in this case.’ and ‘ the exclusion of foster children is objectively justified. It follows that the legislation is compatible with Mr Wall’s Convention rights and there is, in those circumstances, no need to extend the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the statute.’

Judges:

Ward, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 922, [2010] HLR 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 87, Human Rights Act 1998 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Carter v SU Carburetter Co CA 1942
A statutory tenancy is not an estate in land but a mere ‘personal right of occupation’ and is unassignable. . .
Cited – Brock v Wollams CA 1949
A child had been adopted in fact and lived with the tenant for many years, but had not been formally adopted under the Act claimed to inherit the tenancy on his death.
Held: He was to be considered to be a member of the former tenant’s family . .
Distinguished – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
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 . .
Approved – Regina (Gangera) v London Borough of Hounslow Admn 2003
The claimant challenged the Act as being an unlawful discrimination.
Held: The 1985 Act in allowing only one succession to a secure tenancy found a proper balance between the needs of the tenant’s family and the duty of a local housing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421208

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 tenancy had no security beyond the 1977 Act. The appellant fell behind with her rent, but denied that the provisions of the tenancy agreement would allow the landlord to recover possession in this way, saying that it operated as a lease for life. The court at first instance had applied the LRB case to support the grant of possession.
Held: Mummery and Aikens LJJ considered that they were bound by the authority to make the possession order, but Wilson LJ held that the contractual limitation on Mexfield’s right to determine the Agreement was enforceable by Ms Berrisford.

Judges:

Mummery, Wilson, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 811, [2010] 2 EGLR 137, [2011] 2 WLR 423, [2010] HLR 44, [2010] 29 EG 87, [2010] L and TR 25, [2011] PTSR 236, [2011] Ch 244

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 . .
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 by:

Appeal from – 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.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420767

Whitbread West Pennines Ltd v Reedy: CA 1988

The respondent had been employed with the provision of tied accomodation. He had been dismissed. The employer sought possession of the premises. The employees was claiming unfair dismissal and wanted to be re-instated.
Held: Possession was to be granted. If the emploer had made a settled decision that the employee would not be taken back in any event, and was prepared to face any associated financial consequences, he was entitled also to possession.

Citations:

[1988] 20 HLR 642, [1988] ICR 807, Times 23-Jul-1988

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1878 69 72(1)(b)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.536768

Norris (t/a J Davis and Son) v Checksfield: CA 17 Apr 1991

The employee occupied the property under a licence granted by his employer for the better performance of his employment duties. At first he had been taken on as a semi-skilled mechanic, but he was later offered occupation of the employer’s bungalow so that he would be readily available as a coach driver after obtaining a qualification for that purpose. He had been dismissed after the employer discovered that he was in fact disqualified from driving, but he resisted surrender of the property saying that he had a periodic tenancy, and had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. Although the licence was co-terminous with his employment which was periodic, and although he payed andpound;5.00 a week for the occupation through his wage, the licence itself was not a tenancy and was not periodic. Accordingly he was not protected by the notice provisions in section 5 of the 1977 Act.
The fact that the arrangement had come into play only after commencement of the employment made no significant difference.
Woolf LJ said that there must be: ‘a sufficient factual nexus between the commencement of the occupation of the premises and the employment which would benefit from that occupation.’

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 1241, Times 23-Apr-1991, [1991] 4 All ER 327, [1991] 23 HLR 423

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1A)

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 by:

Cited – Wragg and others v Surrey County Council CA 1-Feb-2008
The Council appealed against declarations given that the respondent tenants (wildlife rangers) were entitled to purchase the freehold of their homes under right-to-buy. The Council said that the tenancies were occupied in connection with their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.536728

Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 26 Jan 1971

The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order was not ‘reasonably necessary’ under section 43(2) of the 1957 Act, when there was no material on which he could properly reach a different conclusion.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I know that on matters of planning policy the Minister can overrule the Inspector, and need not send it back to him, as happened in Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government. But the question of what is ‘reasonably necessary’ is not planning policy. It is an inference of fact on which the Minister should not overrule the Inspector’s recommendation unless there is material sufficient for the purpose. There was none here.’
Sachs LJ said that whereas the Inspector ‘may well be looked on as an expert for the purpose of forming an opinion of fact, the Minister is in a different position . . no Minister can personally be an expert on all matters of professional opinion with which his officers deal with from day to day.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs LJ, Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 All ER 1049, (1971) 1 WLR 433, [1971] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 43(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 1-Jul-2002
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Administrative, Housing

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.181252

London Borough of Brent v Stokes: CA 27 Apr 2010

The claimant traveller sought permission to bring a second appeal against an order for possession of land occupied by her and her children for several years. The land was a pitch on a designated gypsy’s site

Judges:

Pattenb LJ, Sir Simon Tuckey

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.418426

Norris v Milton Keynes Council: CA 27 Jan 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision of a review officer to the effect that accommodation at Milton Keynes that had been offered to her under the Council’s Housing Act duties was suitable.

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.418423

Mwanza, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Greenwich and Another: Admn 15 Jun 2010

The claimant had been discharged from inpatient treatment under the 1983 Act, and now sought to oblige the respondent local authorities to provide the assistance he needed.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCL Rep 454, [2010] BLGR 868, [2010] ACD 86, [2011] PTSR 965

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 3 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another ChD 28-Jul-2016
Application for claim to be struck out. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Housing

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416793

Noble v South Herefordshire District Council: CA 1983

The argument (that the word ’emergency’ was used in a wider sense than emergencies confined to emergencies arising from disaster) had no force in this case because in the phrase ‘any emergency such as flood, fire or any other disaster’ the words ‘or any other disaster’ clearly indicate ‘any other disaster’ similar to a flood or a fire.

Judges:

Waller LJ, May LJ

Citations:

(1983) 17 HLR 80

Statutes:

Housing Act 1977 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bristol County Court Ex Parte Bradic CA 1-Sep-1995
An unlawful eviction did not of itself constitute an emergency giving the applicant ‘priority need’ for housing. The event that results in the homelessness of the person claiming a priority need must have the characteristics of being ‘an emergency’ . .
Cited – Higgs v Brighton and Hove City Council CA 30-Jun-2003
The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster?
Held: There was in fact no explanation available for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.184133

Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1986

A council owned a two-storey building divided into four flats, one of which was occupied by the plaintiff. It failed to prevent frozen water pipes in the roof of the building (which was outside the demise to the plaintiff) from bursting and flooding her flat. On being warned by the plaintiff of her fear that such might happen, the council had advised the plaintiff to turn off the stopcock in the back yard of the building (again outside her demise) which supplied water to the pipes, without telling her where and how it should be done.
Held: The council failed itself to take the necessary action with the result that the plaintiff’s flat was flooded, and was liable: ‘the council, knowing it was an emergency and having told her that they would get somebody out as soon as possible, should have impressed on her the importance of turning the stopcock off and should have given her some further advice as to how she ought to cope with that.’

Judges:

Neil LJ

Citations:

[1986] 279 EG 677

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .

Cited by:

Cited – Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent CA 17-Jun-2004
The mother of the claimant had complained to the local authority landlord about the absence of locks on her windows. The council replied that such locks could themselves be a hazard, and did not install a lock. The claimant climbed through and fell . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Negligence

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.198389

Brent London Borough Council v Knightley and Another: CA 26 Feb 1997

The daughter of a deceased tenant claimed succession to her mother’s interest in a tenancy which was subject to a possession order.
Held: There can be no succession to a tolerated trespasser under a former secure tenancy.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Aldous LJ, sChiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 917, (1997) 29 HLR 857

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – White v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
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: . .
Overruled – Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.78571

Birmingham City Council v Clue (Shelter intervening): CA 29 Apr 2010

The claimant had sought housing from the appellant. It had taken the view that her application for indefinite leave to remain would be refused and had rejected her application. The court had found it improper of the council to prejudge the decision of the immigration authorities. The council appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. Except only in hopeless or abusive cases, the council were neither entitled nor required to make such a judgment. Hers was not such a case.
The questions they were to answer in making the housing decision did not include many of the criteria for assessment by the Secretary of State making his decision.

Judges:

Dyson, Etherton LJJ, Sir Scott Baker

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 460, [2010] WLR (D) 109

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408779