Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Housing - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 80 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Regina (Johns) v Bracknell Forest District Council; 2001 - [2001] 33 HLR 86
 
Canterbury City Council v Lowe (2001) 33 HLR 53
2001
CA
Kay and Waller LJJ
Housing
The defendants had made the lives of a neighbour and his daughter (and his mentally ill mother, who sometimes visited them) "a completely misery". The trial judge had received graphic evidence about the very serious nature of the defendants' behaviour. Held: The court decided that an immediate, not a suspended, possession order was appropriate, but expressed great concern about the difficulty of proving a breach of the order on the facts of that case.
1 Citers



 
 Senbanjo v Brent London Borough Council; ChD 4-Jan-2001 - Times, 04 January 2001
 
Goodman v Evely and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 104; [2002] HLR 53; [2001] NPC 43; [2001] L & TR 31
23 Jan 2001
CA

Housing
The Court was asked whether a tenancy of a bungalow was a shorthold tenancy. It provided for an initial one year, and therefater from month to month. The tenant argued that it was not a tenancy for a fixed term. Held: The tenant's appeal failed. " it is clear that this tenancy is not a periodic tenancy, pure and simple, because the automatic continuance at the end of the year is not for the same period, that is to say, continuation from year to year. It follows that it does not come within the exclusion to section 45(1). It follows that not being a periodic tenancy pure and simple, within the terms of the definition it is a fixed tenancy. That this is the intention of the legislature appears to me to be confirmed by the fact that section 20(1)(a) would be tautologous if the tenancy must be confined to a single fixed term for in that event it would have been sufficient to require "a fixed term tenancy granted for not less than six months" thereby omitting from the definition the words "for a term certain of"."
Housing Act 1988
[ Bailii ]
 
Bromford Corinthia Housing Association v Mohammed and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 90
29 Jan 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Din v Cardiff County Council and others [2001] EWCA Civ 115
29 Jan 2001
CA

Local Government, Housing
Application for permission to appeal out of time after such permission had been refused on paper.
[ Bailii ]
 
Haysport Properties Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Rent Officer of West Sussex Registration Area [2001] EWCA Civ 237; [2001] L & TR 37; [2001] 21 EG 168; [2001] 2 EGLR 63; [2001] 6 EGCS 163; (2001) 33 HLR 71
31 Jan 2001
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ
Housing
Challenge to rent for regulated tenany.
Rent Act 1977 67(1)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt; CA 1-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 167; [2001] 3 WLR 62; [2001] NPC 26; [2001] L & TR 40; (2001) 33 HLR 80; (2001) 82 P & CR DG9; [2001] 17 EG 221; [2001] 1 EGLR 53; [2001] QB 1014; (2001) 82 P & CR 35
 
Regina (Catherine Dinsdale, Caloline Wilson, Barbara Shaw, and Safina Saadat) v The Rent Service [2001] EWHC Admin 65
2 Feb 2001
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Fire and Civil Defence Authority v Ahktar; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 295

 
 Regina (Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council; QBD 15-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 92

 
 Regina (Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council; QBD 15-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 92
 
Gallagher v Castle Vale Action Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 944; (2001) 33 HLR 72
23 Feb 2001
CA
Sedley LJ
Housing, Human Rights
The court emphasised the need not merely to identify the relevant factors that weigh in each direction when considering whether to make an order for possession in a nuisance case, but to explain clearly why it is or is not proportionate to interfere with a Convention right in order to address a pressing social need.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Saleem v Secretary of State for Social Security Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 02 March 2001
2 Mar 2001
CA

Benefits, Housing
In order to claim housing support for increased mortgage interest arising on a move to a larger house, the test was whether the purpose was to provide extra sleeping accommodation for children of different sexes on reaching the age of ten. If that was not the sole purpose of the move, then additional benefit could not be claimed. The fact that the move may suit the family in other additional ways was not relevant.


 
 Alghile v Westminster City Council; CA 2-Mar-2001 - Times, 09 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 363
 
Lambeth London Borough Council v Howard [2001] 33 HLR 636; [2001] EWCA Civ 468
6 Mar 2001
CA
Sedley LJ
Human Rights, Housing
Any attempt to evict a person, whether directly or indirectly or by process of law, from his or her home is on the face of it a derogation from the respect to which the home is prima facie entitled. Courts should be careful fully to explain any weighing of proportionality in a human rights case where social need was used to justify interference with a right. In this case "the shadow of the past was too heavy" to be ignored and prevent an outright possesion order.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mary Rushton, Michael Rushton v Worcester City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 367; [2001] NPC 65; [2002] HLR 9; [2003] RVR 129; [2001] 13 EGCS
16 Mar 2001
CA
Potter, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Housing
The claimants had purchased the first tenant's council property under the right to buy scheme. The council had failed to disclose facts about its condition which rendered it valueless, but now appealed against the award of damages for misrepresentation. It had failed to disclose the fact and significance of the use of High Alumina Cement in its construction.
Housing Act 1985 Part V
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Arogol Company Ltd v Rajah [2001] EWCA Civ 454; [2002] HLR 21; (2001) 82 P and CR DG7
21 Mar 2001
CA

Housing
Defendant's appeal from an order granting the claimant a possession order in respect of a ground floor flat. The basic question in the proceedings was whether the defendant had a tenancy protected under the Rent Act 1977. Held: The appeal succeeded.
Rent Act 1977 34(1)(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area, Ex Parte Haysport Properties Ltd Times, 22 March 2001
22 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the 'condition of the dwelling house'. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.
Rent Act 1977 67(3)

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

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
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.

 
Long v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 16 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 403
27 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lady Justice Arden
Housing, Local Government, Landlord and Tenant
The Council outsourced the collection of refuse from the block of council flats where the tenant applicant lived. He asserted that the Council were in breach of their covenants as landlords in failing to ensure that the refuse was collected properly. The tenancy agreement required the landlord to take 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the common parts were kept clean and tidy Held: That duty could be satisfied by delegation, but only if there was in addition an adequate system for monitoring the contractors' performance. It had been also a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheffield City Council v Hopkins [2001] EWCA Civ 831
28 Mar 2001
CA

Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Rowe v Matthews; QBD 2-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 447
 
Regina v Milton Keynes Housing Benefit Review Board Ex Parte Saxby [2001] EWCA Civ 456; [2001] NPC 72; (2001) 33 HLR 82; [2001] BLGR 482
3 Apr 2001
CA
Judge, Hale LJJ
Housing, Benefits

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (G) v Barnet London Borough Council Times, 05 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 540; (2001) 4 CCLR 128
11 Apr 2001
CA
Ward LJ
Housing, Children
A mother and child from Holland were homeless in London. The mother was not entitled to be rehoused as a homeless person, nor to housing benefit, nor to income support, but sought the right to be housed with her child. The authority felt the best plan was to return the child to Holland. The duty under the Act to care for the child contained only a permissive power to care for the family. The obligation under s20 was to provide accommodation only. The decision to provide assistance to return the child could not be returned by a refusal of the mother into a duty to provide accommodation for both.
Children Act 1989 17 20 23
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rajah v Arogol Co Ltd Gazette, 24 May 2001; Times, 13 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 454
13 Apr 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A tenant held a protected tenancy of one room in a house, but later extended his occupation to the entire floor. Held: He did not thereby lose his status as protected tenant, and it did not operate as a surrender of the existing tenancy. The section protected the continuing tenancy because it referred to a grant of the tenancy by a person who was then a landlord.
Housing Act 1988 34
[ Bailii ]
 
O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 499; [2001] NPC 71; [2002] HLR 30; [2001] 16 EGCS 144
17 Apr 2001
CA
Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ
Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale. Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: "The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one."
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be 'inescapable' and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.
Housing Act 1985 118 - Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 499; [2001] NPC 71; [2002] HLR 30; [2001] 16 EGCS 144
17 Apr 2001
CA
Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ
Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale. Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: "The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one."
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be 'inescapable' and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.
Housing Act 1985 118 - Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another; CA 24-Apr-2001 - Times, 15 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 601; [2001] L & TR 34; (2001) 82 P & CR DG26; [2001] 35 EG 106; [2001] 18 EGCS 175; [2001] 3 EGLR 11; [2002] HLR 10; [2001] WTLR 1353
 
Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another Times, 24 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 528; [2001] L & TR 27; [2001] 16 EGCS 145; [2002] HLR 42; [2001] 26 EG 164; [2001] 2 EGLR 36; [2001] 1 WLR 1369; [2001] NPC 74
24 Apr 2001
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from £4,680, to £25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit would be insufficient. Held: The agreement to increase the rent was a sham. The purpose of the agreement was to grant an assured tenancy, and therefore the purpose was to provide security. The rent increase was never expected to be paid, and although the Act left the parties to agree their rent, the increased amount when properly analysed was not rent, but a way of defeating the tenat's security.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Haysport Properties Ltd) v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area Gazette, 26 April 2001
26 Apr 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the 'condition of the dwelling house'. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.
Rent Act 1977 67(3)


 
 Regina v London Borough of Newham and Manik Bibi and Ataya Al-Nashed; CA 26-Apr-2001 - Times, 10 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 607; [2002] 1 WLR 237
 
Marshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWCA Civ 594; (2002) HLR 22
27 Apr 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Schiemann LJ and Sir Christopher Staughton
Housing
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the secure tenancy revived automatically once it could be seen that the suspended possession order was under its own terms no longer enforceable and (3) whether the district council had waived any right to rely upon the tenants' failure to comply with the conditions in the possession order. Held: It was not open to a landlord to waive breaches of an order so as to resuscitate the original tenancy. There had to be an application to the court. "The power to discharge or rescind the order of possession, conferred by section 85 (4) of 1985 Act, is a power which can only be exercised in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time". The reference to "conditions" in s.85(4) was a reference to the conditions (as varied from time to time under s.85(3)) upon which the order for possession was suspended.
Housing Act 1985 85(3) 85(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue; CA 27-Apr-2001 - Gazette, 11 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] QB 48; [2001] All ER (D) 210
 
Das, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Committee and others [2001] EWCA Civ 648
30 Apr 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee [2001] EWHC Admin 309
4 May 2001
Admn

Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Painter) v Carmarthenshire County Council Housing Benefit Review Board; Regina (Murphy) v Westminster City Council and Others; QBD 16-May-2001 - Times, 16 May 2001
 
Regina and Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Enfield on the Application of Christopher Campbell [2001] EWHC Admin 354
16 May 2001
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Rushton and Another v Worcester City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 824
22 May 2001
CA

Housing
Application to correct mathematical errors in the main judgment.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Borough of Hackney - v - Ekinci; CA 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 776
 
Coleman v Ipswich Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 852
24 May 2001
CA
Hale LJ
Housing
Application for permission to make a second appeal. Whether defendant tenant was a secure tenant.
Housing Act 1985 Sch 1 2(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
A v The London Borough of Lambeth [2001] EWHC Admin 376
25 May 2001
Admn

Children, Local Government, Housing
The applicant was mother of three children, two of whom were autistic. She sought re-housing from the defendant. It was claimed that s17 imposed a specific duty on the authority, having identified a child's needs, in this case for re-housing, to satisfy them. Held: The structure the section is general, and point very clearly to a discretion, rather than a duty, to provide accommodation in any individual case. The Act also provides a distinction between a duty to provide services and any duty to provide housing. The duties are target ones. The 1970 Act does not include a power to provide accommodation.
Children Act 1989 17 - Carer's Recognition and Services Act 1995 - Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust [2001] EWHC Ch 411
13 Jun 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Housing, Limitation
The authority had served notices on the second defendant, requiring him to execute works to bring a property up to a habitable condition. Eventually the authority executed the works themselves, and sought repayment from him of the costs. He resisted enforcement proceedings on the basis that claim was defeated by limitation, and the long delay. Held: The Act provided that 'the amount of any expenses and interest thereon due to a local authority . . . shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred'. The charge does not take effect until the demand becomes operative and time cannot therefore begin to run for the purposes of an action for possession until 21 days after service of the demand, and time does not begin to run until the demand is made. The appeal failed.
Housing Act 1985 - Limitation Act 1980 15(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another Times, 14 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2002] 34 HLR 1; [2001] EWCA Civ 677; [2001] EWCA Civ 677
14 Jun 2001
CA

Immigration, Housing, Benefits
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full 'lawful presence' in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary admission did not create a sufficient status by virtue of section 11.
Housing Act 1996 185(2) - Homelessness (England) Regulations 2000 (2000 No 701) 3(1)(e)(1) - Immigration Act 1971 11(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheffield City Council v Hopkins Gazette, 05 July 2001; Times, 23 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1023; [2002] HLR 12
19 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Woolf CJ
Housing
A possession order was granted against a secure tenant by the court for arrears of rent. The tenant then applied to suspend the order, and the landlord opposed that application wishing to put before the court additional allegations. Held: Provided the tenant had been served with satisfactory notice of the matters upon which the landlord wished to rely, the court could hear and allow for such elements, particularly where they related to actions of the tenant after the date of the possession order.
Housing Act 1985 85
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Network Housing Association Ltd v Hamoodizadeh and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1036
22 Jun 2001
CA

Housing
The tenant had been moved into alternate accomodation whilst repairs were to be carried out, but had failed to emove his belongings to allow th erepairs despite a court order to do so.
[ Bailii ]
 
Perry v Scherchen and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1192; [2002] 1 P & CR DG8
27 Jun 2001
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick, Rougher LJJ
Housing, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
William Watson Stirling v Leadenhall Residential 2 Ltd Times, 25 July 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1011; [2002] I WLR 499; [2001] 3 All ER 645; [2002] L & TR 14
29 Jun 2001
CA
Judge LJ, Latham LJ, Lloyd J
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Held. A tenant who continued to stay in property after a possession order was granted, but who paid a sum equivalent to rent as it fell due, and something off the arrears, did not necessarily thereby become a tenant again, but could be viewed as a tolerated trespasser. That status might be compromised as against the landlord where he requested a sum which was, in effect, a rent increase. That request was incompatible with the terms of the court order granting him possession, and created a new tenancy.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (McDonagh) v Salisbury District Council Times, 15 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 567
5 Jul 2001
QBD
Jackson J
Housing, Housing, Human Rights
A local authority granted the applicant an introductory tenancy, but then gave notice of its intention to issue possession proceedings in the light of tenancy breaches. The tenant requested a review, and the date was set, but this was later than the date upon which the possession proceedings were to begin. He alleged that the review was nullified by that fact. The review was defective, but the Act provided for no consequences to flow from such a breach. In such cases, the tenant could apply for the warrant for possession to be stayed pending the outcome of the review, and that was adequate to cure the failure.
Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 72) - Housing Act 1996 129 (6)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (McDonagh) v Salisbury District Council Times, 15 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 567
5 Jul 2001
QBD
Jackson J
Housing, Housing, Human Rights
A local authority granted the applicant an introductory tenancy, but then gave notice of its intention to issue possession proceedings in the light of tenancy breaches. The tenant requested a review, and the date was set, but this was later than the date upon which the possession proceedings were to begin. He alleged that the review was nullified by that fact. The review was defective, but the Act provided for no consequences to flow from such a breach. In such cases, the tenant could apply for the warrant for possession to be stayed pending the outcome of the review, and that was adequate to cure the failure.
Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 72) - Housing Act 1996 129 (6)
[ Bailii ]
 
St Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1138; [2002] 1 WLR 1537
17 Jul 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ
Human Rights, Housing, Litigation Practice
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial. Held: The hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant's right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant's legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory.
The issue of a warrant was an administrative and not a judicial process.
Kennedy LJ: "the routine enforcement of court orders …should not normally entail a separate hearing". There is a need for "court administration [to be] flexible and efficient".
Rix LJ: "An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court's orders is in the public interest".
Housing Act 1985 85 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd Gazette, 20 September 2001; Times, 02 October 2001; Gazette, 04 October 2001; [2002] 4 All ER 264; [2001] EWCA Civ 1252; [2002] Ch 306
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Kay, Lady Justice Arden
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. Held: The appeal succeeded. The Mecca case was wrongly decided. The deeming provision in the lease was decisive, or nearly so, contra indication of the idea that time should not be of the essence in such cases. Per Arden LJ: "It is relevant, however, to note that the lease is made between two commercial parties. If the tenant had been a consumer and the provisions for review of rent had not been individually negotiated (and no other enactment applied), it would be open to the tenant to argue that by virtue of the Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 S1 1999/2083, the provisions of proviso (2) are not binding on him".
Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S1 1999/2083)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Speedwell Estates Ltd and Another v Dalziel and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1307
31 Jul 2001
CA

Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brighton and Hove City Council v Gill [2001] EWCA Civ 1417
9 Aug 2001
CA

Housing
Application for leave to appeal against tenant's possession order - arrears of rent.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2001] EWHC Admin 641; (2001) 4 CCLR 455; [2002] LGR 545
23 Aug 2001
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burton
Housing, Local Government
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. The Act sought to satisfy a need for care with housing provision. It is a safety net provision for urgent cases. In this case no sufficient need for care had been shown to require the Authority to act under the section.
National Assistance Act 1948 21 - Housing Act 1996
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Stewart) v Wandsworth London Borough Council and Others Times, 15 November 2001
17 Sep 2001
QBD
Mr Jack Beatson, QC
Housing, Local Government
The words 'within their area' in the section had to be read consistently with other parts of the Act, and therefore, the duty to carry out an assessment if a child had a physical connection with the area. A temporary housing in a homeless hostel within the authority district was sufficient.
Children Act 1989 17(1)(a) - Housing Act 1996 190
1 Cites


 
Ekwuru v Westminster City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1497
4 Oct 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 09 November 2001
9 Oct 2001
QBD
Burton J
Discrimination, Human Rights, Housing, Planning
When assessing whether a gypsy should be granted planning permission to park his caravan on a site, the authority could not take into account the fact that he had earlier refused an offer of permanent housing, where acceptance of that offer would have been contrary to the applicant's traditional way of life. The appellant and his family were Romanies who lead a nomadic way of life. The Inspector should consider whether: he lived in a caravan; he was a Romany; he was nomadic for a substantial part of the year; the itinerancy was linked to his livelihood; and he had an aversion to conventional housing.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 and 14 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990

 
Malik v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames [2001] EWCA Civ 1530
10 Oct 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 18 October 2001; Gazette, 25 October 2001; [2001] UKHL 43; [2002] 1 AC 301; [2002] 1 All ER 46; [2001] 3 WLR 806; [2001] All ER (D) 154; [2002] RVR 162; [2002] L & TR 15; [2002] 1 P & CR DG15; [2001] 3 EGLR 93; [2001] Hous LR 133
 
Porter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt Gazette, 29 November 2001; Times, 09 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1549; [2002] 1 WLR 1359
12 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey
Planning, Human Rights, Housing
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights. Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies' right to respect for private and family life.
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another; CA 16-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 29 November 2001; Times, 03 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1510; [2002] QB 1129; [2002] LGR 191
 
Moore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2001] EWCA Civ 1577
17 Oct 2001
CA

Housing

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bond v Leicester City Council Times, 23 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1544; [2002] 1 FCR 566; [2002] HLR 6
23 Oct 2001
CA
Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice David Steel
Children, Housing, Family
The applicant had been the victim of domestic violence. She applied to be rehoused, but the authority considered her to be intentionally homeless, since she could have applied to court for an injunction excluding the violent partner. Held: That approach was incorrect. Although remedies might be available, these could be uncertain, and difficult for some people to achieve, and particularly so where there were children, and the courts would otherwise encourage attempts by the parties to avoid bitterness so as to encourage contact. There is still no presumption that contact with a violent parent was wrong.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Saadat) v The Rent Service Times, 06 November 2001; Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1559
26 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Sedley
Housing
When choosing an area over which comparisons of rents are to be made, the Service had to look at a locality which was no larger than was necessary to establish such a comparison. The choice of too wide an area resulted in the inclusion within the comparison of areas and localities of a different character. The result of that approach was to achieve the opposite of the purpose of the order. The area was so large that the poorer dwellings in it would bring the median down to a point which would drive out or pauperise otherwise eligible claimants. locality" did not necessarily refer to a particular geographical or administrative area. It signified an area no greater than would enable rent officers reliably to make the specified calculations and judgments, and could not be a larger area chosen arbitrarily such as an entire town (in this case Stockport).
Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 No 1984)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Watson v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council Gazette, 15 November 2001
29 Oct 2001
Admn
Gibbs J
Housing, Rating
The defendant owned houses subject to multiple lettings. Upon receipt of repairs enforcement notices from the authority, the use was discontinued, the notices withdrawn, and the property remained empty. They sought relief from payment of council tax. They claimed that the property remained empty as a consequence of the notice, and was therefore exempt. Held: the particular notices had not prohibited occupation.
Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 class G

 
Solon Chs Ltd v Smolen [2001] EWCA Civ 1672
29 Oct 2001
CA

Housing
application for permission to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Times, 02 November 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 57; [2002 1 AC 547; [2002] 1 All ER 176; [2002] HLR 7; [2001] 3 WLR 1339; [2002] 1 FCR 183; [2001] NPC 154
1 Nov 2001
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Housing, Local Government
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under section 193. The authority told Mrs M that they accepted a duty to arrange accommodation for her but that, although she had a local connection with Ealing where she had lived, she had no connection with Hammersmith, so the applications of both husband and wife were referred to Ealing on the basis that they appeared to have a local connection with Ealing but not with Hammersmith. The decision to refer was upheld on review and in the county court on the basis that the husband's residence in Hammersmith was not normal residence under 199(1)(a). Hammersmith argued that the occupation of interim accommodation pending a decision on the husband's application under section 193 could not amount to normal residence. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Held: The appeal failed. When testing the decision of a local authority to refer an applicant for housing to another local authority, on the basis that the applicant had no local connection, the authority must make allowance for an interim residence in the area. The prima facie meaning of 'normal residence,' was a place where, at the relevant time, the person in fact resided. So long as that place where he eat and slept was voluntarily accepted by him, the reason why he was there rather than somewhere else did not prevent that place from being his normal residence. The date at which the connection was to be tested was the date at which the review was carried out, and the review could include matters arising after the initial decision.
The occupation by a homeless person of interim accommodation provided under section 188 of the 1996 Act could be "normal residence" for the purpose of establishing a local connection under section 199.
Lord Slynn of Hadley stated that words like "ordinary residence" and "normal residence" take their precise meaning from the context of the legislation in which they appear. He suggested that the place that a person voluntarily accepts and in which he eats and sleeps is for the relevant time where he normally resides. The fact that the local authority had given him interim accommodation in performance of its statutory duty under section 188 of the 1996 Act did not prevent that accommodation from being the place where he was for the time normally resident.
Housing Act 1996 198 199(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 20 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1624
5 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Philip Otton
Housing, Children
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a 'target' duty crystallised into an enforceable one, once a child's needs had been assessed. If that had been the intention, parliament would have had to have expressed such a process in the Act.
Children Act 1989 17(1) - Housing Act 1996 176 189(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
GMAC RFC Ltd v Grant-Sinclair and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1793
19 Nov 2001
CA
Clarke LJ
Housing
Appeal from decision in mortgage possession avction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jan and Another v Torrance [2001] EWCA Civ 1974
19 Nov 2001
CA
Mance LJ
Housing
Application for leave to appeal from possession action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Family Housing Association v Donnellan and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1840
23 Nov 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Housing, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Moiram Bibi) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board [2001] EWHC Admin 967
27 Nov 2001
Admn
Justice Newman
Benefits, Housing, Human Rights
The respondent board had refused to pay housing benefit on the basis that the claimant's tenancy was not run on a commercial basis. She asserted that they had not given her a fair opportunity to be heard. New regulations had changed the treatment of her situation, and the board had delayed its decision to her disadvantage. Held: The delay was short and not unfair. The factors relevant to assessing whether an agreement was on a commercial basis are not closed but include all the circumstances and particularly the absence of a rent book, that occupation had arisen at the instigation of the claimant, who was agent for the property, who entered it without consultation; and the absence of possession proceedings. Was the tribunal independent. It comprised councillors and council workers. There was no sound basis in this case for concluding that the appearance of a lack of independence and impartiality gave rise to a violation of article 6.
Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1998 (1998 No.3257) - Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 130 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Harrow v Qazi [2001] EWCA Civ 1834; [2002] HLR 276; [2001] EWCA Civ 1834
3 Dec 2001
CA
Arden LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ
Housing, Human Rights
The applicant had been a joint tenant of the respondent. His co-tenant had terminated the tenancy. He now challenged the possession proceedings saying that they would deprive him of his home. Held: The appeal succeeded. The question before the court was "whether a former tenant whose tenancy has come to an end by operation of law can, after that time, have a right to a home for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention" The court rejected the argument that article 8 is not engaged where a former tenant lacks any legal or equitable right or interest in the house.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eston Bernard v London Borough of Enfield [2001] EWCA Civ 1831
4 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Mr Justice Harrison
Housing
The applicant sought review of a decision by the local authority that he was intentionally homeless through a failure to pay his rent. He appealed a rejection of leave to appeal, and his appeal was with regard to the adequacy of the reasons given by the local authority for its decision. The claimant said he had insufficient to pay the rent, and the authority failed in its decision to explain in any detail how his budget could meet the sum required. Held: The obligation to give reasons is imposed to ensure that the person affected knows what decision has been made and is put in a position to know whether there is any defect in the decision. In this case that object had been met.
Housing Act 1996204 - Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 3204)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Reynolds v Brent London Borough Council Times, 18 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1843
4 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Buxton
Housing, Licensing, Local Government
When a local authority was considering the fitness of a proposed licensee for the purposes of managing a house in multiple occupation, it was not under an obligation first to consider whether conditions proposed by the manager, would adequately meet any objections. The clause which allowed the court to attach conditions was free standing and separate. The authority was entitled to refuse registration without considering the imposition of restrictions.
Housing Act 1985 348
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Newham v Adan Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1916; [2002] 1 WLR 2120; [2001] NPC 185; [2002] UKHRR 229; [2002] HLR 28; [2002] HRLR 17; [2002] 1 All ER 931
14 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice David Steel
Housing, Human Rights
The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority now appealed. Held: The County Court in reviewing such decisions under the section, was exercising a jurisdiction similar to that of the High Court on a judicial review, and therefore was bound by the factual findings of the reviewing officer. The county court has no power to direct a local housing authority how to carry out a review. If there was any question of unfairness in the procedure in denying her a fair trial, then that was for parliament to remedy. The reviewing officer's decision was re-instated.
Housing Act 1996 204(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fradkina and others v London Borough of Barnet and others [2001] EWCA Civ 2002
14 Dec 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar Times, 15 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2034; [2002] 1 P & CR DG22; [2002] 11 EG 156; [2002] 3 EGCS 127; [2002] L & TR 25; [2001] NPC 188; [2002] 1 EGLR 9; [2002] HLR 33
19 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith;Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Tuckey
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors. Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the notice was likely to serve the purpose, and it could be valid. There was not a two stage test of first determining whether there was an obvious mistake. The test was rather whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice was substantially to the same effect as the correct version in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the notice was not to set the terms of eth tenancy, because the tenancy did not yet exist, and was created by the tenancy and not by the notice, but rather and only to help the tenant identify which tenancy would be subject to these conditions.
Mummery LJ said: "In my judgment, however, a detailed analysis of each decision is not a profitable exercise: the question whether a notice under section 20 is in the prescribed form or is in a form "substantially to the same effect" is a question of fact and degree in each case, turning on a comparison between the prescribed form in Annex 1 and the particular form of notice given . . The question is simply whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice is 'substantially to the same effect' in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy."
Housing Act 1988 20 - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 SI No 2203)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fradkina, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barnet [2001] EWCA Civ 2071
21 Dec 2001
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.