The applicant had a mobile home with the benefit of protection under the Act. He built a permanent porch for the home. The land owner appealed refusal of an order to say that she had lost her rights under the Act. He argued that it had lost its mobility.
Held: The judge had held that the essential nature of the dwelling had not changed. This was the wrong test. The agreement under which she had first occupied the land included the characterisation of the occupation as protected under the Act. The test was whether that agreement had been validly terminated. It had not.
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
Times 19-Aug-2002, Gazette 26-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1086
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council CA 6-Apr-1994
The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Contract
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174357