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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 75 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Yumsak v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC 280 Admin; [2003] HLR 1
2002
Admn

Housing
The court will not readily interfere with the approach of a housing authority to the question of suitability, although in an appropriate case it plainly will.
1 Citers



 
 Southwark London Borough Council v McIntosh; ChD 2002 - [2002] 1 EGLR 25

 
 Regina (Fatima Jeylani) v London Borough of Waltham Forest; 2002 - [2002] EWHC 487 (Admin)
 
Regina (on the application of Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1839 (Admin
2002

Collins J
Benefits, Housing, Immigration
The court was concerned to interpret s122(4) of the 1999 Act relating to "essential living needs". Basic support and basic essential needs by reference to non-disabled asylum seekers would be provided by the Secretary of State under the 1999 Act, but that any additional support needed as a result of disabilities would be provided by local authorities under s21 of the 1948 Act.
National Assistance Act 1948 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
1 Citers


 
Morris v London Borough of Newham [2002] EWHC 1262 Admin
2002
Admn
Jackson J
Housing, Human Rights
The claimant complained that the defendant authority had failed to provide her and her family with suitable accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 193. Breach of duty was conceded. The relief sought by the claimant included damages for breach of Article 8. Held: "Absent special circumstances which interfere with private or family life, a homeless person cannot rely upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 in order to found a damages claim for failure to provide accommodation". Although the defendant's breach of duty had compelled the claimant and her family to live in "grossly overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation" for a period of 29 weeks, this did not infringe Article 8.
Housing Act 1996 193 - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers


 
Manchester City Council v Finn [2002] EWCA Civ 1998; [2003] HLR 41
2002
CA

Housing
The court was concerned with the "secure" tenancy regime and the proper approach to the 1985 Act. The court took a "purposive approach" in considering whether to allow the making of an amendment to a conditional possession order on the basis of new facts relating to the illegal activities of the tenant. The alternative would have been to compel the service of a new notice and the commencement of new proceedings without advantage or disadvantage to either party.
Housing Act 1985 83 85
1 Citers


 
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 279
16 Jan 2002
CA
Judge, Latham, Arden LJJ
Limitation, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Housing Act 1957 9(1A)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Conway, Regina (on the Application of) v Mayor and Burgesses of the Borough of Charnwood [2002] EWHC 43 (Admin)
17 Jan 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Wilson
Housing
The applicant sought to be placed on the defendant borough's rehousing list. She was disabled with four dependant children. She had family who would be able to help her if she moved. Before her appeal was heard the Borough changed its policy to exclude applicants under the age of 60. Held: The authority had some discretion as to how to conduct its housing register. The new policy allowed no discretion to officials. In the circumstances the review panel should have operated under the previous policy, and should have seen that it retained a discretion. The decision was quashed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Piggott) v Bedfordshire County Council Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002
17 Jan 2002
QBD
Justice Turner
Housing
The claimant sought allocation of a pitch on a caravan site for gypsies. She appealed a refusal of the pitch, which had been made solely on the basis that she had already come onto the site and was trespassing at the time of the application. Held: The council should weigh up the needs of the claimant, of the community in general, and the needs of other potential occupants who had behaved in an orderly way. Improper behaviour by the claimant might justify a lower priority, but was not itself conclusive.

 
Goodger v London Borough of Ealing [2002] EWCA Civ 36
17 Jan 2002
CA

Housing
The claimant authority sought leave to appeal refusal of a possession order after the was said to have broken a term of his tenancy by allowing the sale of cannabis in the house. The judge had found a breach of natural justice when the authority had made its file available for inspection only six days before the hearing. Held: Leave was granted. The case was arguable, and guidance was necessary.
Housing Act 1996 204
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lee v Leeds City Council; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 21-Jan-2002 - Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 6; [2002] 1 EGLR 103
 
Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 4; [2002] LGR 467; [2002] HLR 639
25 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Kay
Housing, Human Rights, Local Government
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful and proportionate. So far as such non-secure tenancies were concerned, the judge was not obliged to grant possession, but had a discretion. Held: The homes were to be treated as such despite any lack of security. Nevertheless, the balance of interests under Article 8(2) was properly struck. There are some statutory regimes under which the balance of interests arising under Article 8(2) has in all its essentials been struck by the legislature and under which a court, before ordering a defendant to give up possession of accommodation where he has been living, is not obliged to adjudicate upon the specific merits of coercive action in an individual case. The word 'engaged' is not part of the vocabulary of human rights law.
Housing Act 1996 193 - Housing Act 1985 21(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8.2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cardiff City Council v Stone Times, 19 February 2002
29 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge and Lady Justice Arden
Housing
A local authority having served a notice on the tenant that the tenancy granted was under the section and therefore introductory, was not obliged to reserve a notice before beginning possession proceedings, even though several months may have passed since the review requested by the tenant under the notice, and the situation had changed. Held: The system did not allow a discretion, the court had to grant possession. Though section 128 was mandatory, it applied to notices by the landlord and not to decisions of the review tribunal.
Housing Act 1996 129 127
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Pollards Hill Housing Association v Marsh [2002] EWCA Civ 199
5 Feb 2002
CA
Kay LJ
Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)
11 Feb 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Keith
Housing, Judicial Review
The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority's failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing. Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.
National Assistance Act 1948 21 - Housing Act 1996 167
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bempoa, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWHC 153 (Admin)
14 Feb 2002
Admn
Munby J
Housing, Contempt of Court, Local Government
Gilliatt The court issued a very public and highly deserved rebuke of LB Southwark's 'outrageous' breach of an undertaking to a court not to enforce a possession order. The case is interesting in its detail of the systematic failures of the local authority. The court also gave the appellant leave to apply for damages, whilst expressing some doubts about the personal right to damages of the victim of a contemptuous action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Plymouth City Council v Hoskin [2002] EWCA Civ 261
18 Feb 2002
CA

Housing
Possession order - anti-social behaviour
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Connor and Others v Old Etonians Housing Association Ltd Times, 06 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 150
20 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Buxton
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The pipes in a block of flats had been changed from 1.5 to 1 inch. This was all right for some 6 years until the water pressure of the supply to the building dropped. The issue was whether there was a breach of the s.11(1) covenant. The landlords appealed saying that the section imposed upon them a duty to repair only, and not an obligation to ensure that the pipes were physically or mechanically capable of supplying water. Held: There was a distinction between the duty to keep in repair, and the duty to keep in proper working order. It was not in proper working order if, through a defect in construction or design, it was not supplying what it should. The landlord was not under an obligation to provide s supply which could survive any changes in circumstances, but he did have a duty to maintain a system which could reasonably cope with any changes in the supply which might be expected. "an installation will be in proper working order if it is able to function under those conditions of supply that it is reasonable to anticipate will prevail."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(1)(b)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Times, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 432 (Admin); [2002] 5 CCLR 434; [2002] 2 FLR 1
4 Mar 2002
Admn
Justice Elias
Housing, Local Government, Children, Benefits, Human Rights
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support. Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and his or her mother. Section 2 of the 2000 Act might be of assistance, being drafted in broad terms to provide new powers for local authorities, including the power to assist in these circumstances. A local authority had power under the 2000 Act to provide an immigrant from Ghana whose status had not yet been determined with financial assistance for acquiring accommodation if this was the only way to avoid a breach of the applicant's Article 8 rights. The facts of that case were that, if the immigrant was not assisted to acquire accommodation, it would be necessary to take her child into care. It was common ground that this would violate her Article 8(1) rights. Where a Convention right would be infringed if a local authority concluded that it was not open to it to exercise a particular power which it had, but that the infringement could be avoided by exercising some other power which it had, the power to exercise that other power becomes a duty to exercise it.
Children Act 1989 17 - Local Government Act 2000 2 - European Convention on Human Rights A8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth; CA 6-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 271; [2002] 4 All ER 1136; [2003] 1 WLR 617
 
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Runa Begum Times, 04 April 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] HLR 70; [2002] EWCA Civ 239
6 Mar 2002
CA
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Dyson
Housing, Human Rights
The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions on disputed facts, and reviewing its own decisions on those facts. It was not acting independently. Held: The review was a determination of the applicants civil rights, and not merely the exercise of a discretion. Though there may have been no actual bias in the decision, it was done in private, and there was an appearance of risk of bias. The s204 right of appeal to the county court was part of the same procedure, and was independent. That court had full power to look at those matters at issue, and was a sufficient remedy to any defects in the earlier procedure.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 - Housing Act 1996 204(1) - Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 - Local Authority (Contracting Out of Allocation Housing Homelessness Functions) Order 1996 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malaga-Cano v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2002] EWCA Civ 436
7 Mar 2002
CA
Kennedy LJ
Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 276; [2002] 24 EG 149
7 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Mummery LJ
Housing
Mummery LJ said: "In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of "once an assured tenancy, always an assured tenancy". The provisions of Schedule 10 relied upon do not set a ceiling of £25,000 on the amount of he annual rent which may be validly proposed or which the Committee ma validly determine. The case advanced by Mr Morris would, if accepted, produce the surprising conclusion that a tenant could remain in a high value property at less than the proper open market rent determined by the Committee. If the rent is determined by the Committee at a figure exceeding £25,000, the landlord is not prohibited by statute from recovering it: the result is that the tenancy will simply cease to qualify for protection as an assured tenancy. The alternative submission on the validity of the notice fails because the rent proposed in the notice was, as the judge held, a realistic rent based on valuation evidence."
Housing Act 1988 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wahid v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2002] EWCA Civ 287; [2003] HLR 2; [2002] 5 CCLR 247; [2002] BLGR 545; [2002] LGR 545
7 Mar 2002
CA
Pill LJ, Mummery LJ, Hale LJ
Housing, Local Government
Gilliatt The appellant suffered from schizophrenia. He was refused permission to apply for judicial review and for orders requiring the local authority not just to provide suitable accommodation but better accommodation as a person in need of care and attention under s 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948. The court decided that in a case where the evidence showed that a person's housing needs could adequately be meet by the provision of ordinary housing, there was no extra duty under the National Assistance Act. The family had a housing need, not just the claimant as a result of his mental illness. He was not in need of 'care and assistance' under the National Assistance Act. The power to provide accommodation is dependent upon three conditions being satisfied: first, the person must be in need of care and attention; secondly, the need must arise by reason of age, illness, disability or "other circumstances" and, thirdly, the care and attention which is needed must not be available otherwise than by the provision of accommodation under section 21.
National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Yeomen's Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick; CA 12-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 456
 
Bono, Regina (on the Application of) v Harlow District Council Times, 23 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 423 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 423 (Admin)
15 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Richards
Housing, Human Rights, Benefits
The applicants were self-employed market traders. Their income was low, but they were unable to produce accounts by way of proof. The local authority declined their application for housing benefit in the absence of such proof. They complained that presence of local councillors on the committee which made the decision, made that not an independent body, and that since the issue was one of primary fact, judicial review would not be available. The authority argued that since they were following a statutory duty, their own acts fell within the defence under 6(2)(b). Held: The duty under the 1998 Act was to read statutes, where possible, in such a way as to make that provision compliant. Section 6(2)(b) only provided protection where such interpretation was not available to them.
Human Rights Act 19986(2)(b) 8 - Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1971 (1971 No 1987)
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Southwark v Kaikai [2002] EWCA Civ 432
19 Mar 2002
CA
Mummery LJ
Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Long v Southwark London Borough Council Gazette, 10 May 2002
27 Mar 2002
CA
Ward, Chadwick and Arden LJJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The claimant was a tenant of the flat and the respondents were landlords. She claimed damages for breach of the landlord's covenant to take reasonable steps to keep the common parts clear. The authority argued that its appointment and payment of independent contractors to do the work satisfied that duty. Held: The appointment itself was not sufficient discharge of the duty. There was no adequate system for monitoring the performance of the covenant by the contractors.

 
Akumah v London Borough of Hackney [2002] EWCA Civ 582
17 Apr 2002
CA
Buxton LJ, Moses J
Local Government, Housing
The council imposed a parking scheme on one of the estates for which it was landlord. A tenant challenged the scheme saying it could only have been imposed by a byelaw, not a resolution. Held: "section 7(1) extends the powers of a housing authority beyond those in section 23(1), or at least avoids any unclarity in the important area of making byelaws. In particular, section 7(1) of the 1975 Act extends to the regulation of parking on any land held for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act 1985." The council's appeal succeeded. The scheme was lawful.
Housing Act 1985 23(1) - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Mani) v Lambeth London Borough Council, Regina (Tasci) v Enfield London Borough Council, Regina (J) -v Same Times, 08 May 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 735 (Admin); (2002) 5 CCLR 486; [2002] ACD 78
18 Apr 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Wilson
Housing, Benefits, Immigration
The applicants were asylum seekers, but also had disabilities, and sought housing assistance from the local authorities. The authorities replied that they had no duty to provide housing because of the Immigration Act. Held: The 1948 Act provided care where no other was available. The need for rehousing here arose in part from the applicant's disabilities, and that was enough. The duty was not displaced because the need arose in large part from simple destitution for which the state provided other resources. Assistance in this context included the provision of housing, and in making the assessment the authority had under the 2000 regulations to ignore the other support given to asylum seekers.
National Assistance Act 1948 21 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115 - Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 704) 6(3) 23(1) 23(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Chairman of the London Rent Assessment Committee; Admn 19-Apr-2002 - [2002] EWHC 835 (Admin)
 
Goodger v London Borough of Ealing [2002] EWCA Civ 751
23 Apr 2002
CA

Housing
The claimant had sought housing as a homeless person. The authority rejected his claim saying that he was intentionally homeless, having lost his previous accomodation having grown cannabis there breaching his tenancy. The authority appealed an order which said it had breached natural justice by not providing its file for inspection until a few days before the hearing. Held: The claimant had known the detail of the representations he wished t make, and had not been prejudiced. The authority was bound to come to the conclusion it had in fact reached, and the appeal succeeded.
Housing Act 1996 204
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Stewart v London Borough of Lambeth Gazette, 23 May 2002; Times, 28 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 753; [2002] HLR 40
26 Apr 2002
CA
Gibson LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, longmore LJ
Housing
The local authority said that the claimant, having been sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment for drugs offences, had made himself intentionally homeless within the section. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for non-payment of rent. He had arranged with his sister that the rent should continue to be paid while he was in prison, but she failed to implement the arrangement. His application was rejected on the basis that he was intentionally homeless. Held: The causal chain connecting his deliberate conduct in committing the offence to his homelessness on release from prison had not been broken. This might have been different if the arrangement had been implemented for a time but had then broken down.
Housing Act 1996 190 191
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Begum and Another v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2002] EWHC 633 (Admin)
30 Apr 2002
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Godwin v Rossendale Borough Council Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 13 June 2002
3 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Clarke
Local Government, Housing, Benefits
The appellant was a landlord. His tenant was entitled to housing benefit, which was paid direct to the landlord. The authority decided that the benefit was no longer payable, and sought eventually to recover overpayments from the landlord by making deductions from other amounts due to him for tenants in the same building. Held: The sums were repayable. The council should have given him notice of the intention to stop the benefit, but that fault was cured by his having a right of appeal later. It would make sense to hear both appeals together.

 
Regina (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 613
3 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Keene
Children, Local Government, Housing
A family had been found to be voluntarily homeless. The family asked the authority to provide housing to the family under the 1989 Act from its duty to care for the children. Held: The 1989 Act did not change the law in the 1980 Act. The authority had a power to assist and Another child in these circumstances. However, it was not a duty, and the authority had a discretion as to how it might use the power. The 2001 Lambeth case was wrongly decided. The powers of the authority were not to be compartmentalized.
Children Act 1989 17 - Child Care Act 1980 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed and Another v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 821
20 May 2002
CA
Waller LJ
Housing, Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Somerset County Council v Isaacs [2002] EWHC 1014 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 1088
24 May 2002
Admn

Housing, Human Rights

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick [2002] EWCA Civ 860
30 May 2002
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Woonbron Volkshuisvestingsgroep v The Netherlands 47122/99; [2002] ECHR 856
18 Jun 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Housing
Decisions about state subsidies to housing associations do not raise issues about civil rights.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tomkins v Basildon District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 876
24 Jun 2002
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd; CA 5-Jul-2002 - Times, 17 July 2002; Gazette, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1340; [2002] 49 EG 126; [2002] EGLR 42
 
London Borough of Merton v Williams [2002] EWCA Civ 980
17 Jul 2002
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu Times, 29 August 2002
18 Jul 2002
ChD
Lloyd J
Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Civil Procedure Rules
The landlord appealed a finding of the county court that a notice of assured shorthold tenancy needed to be served on the tenant personall?. Here the notice had been served on the proposed tenant's solicitors. Held: Though Galinski applied to a different procedure the analogy was appropriate. Service on the tenant's solicitors was adequate. Proceedings had been commenced anticipating no dispute as to fact. Once it became clear that there was such a dispute, the court should have expressly stated that it was to be treated as if it had never been allocated to fast track, and that it should accordingly proceed as a multi-track case, and an appeal would be to the High Court and not to the Court of Appeal.
Housing Act 1988 20 - Civil Procedure Rules Part 8 - Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 (2000 No 1071) 4
1 Cites


 
London Borough of Lambeth v A [2002] EWCA Civ 1084; [2002] HLR 57
23 Jul 2002
CA
Collins J
Housing
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority's housing policy. Collins J said: "Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot secure that the necessary head start is given". A policy was irrational if it did not contain "a mechanism for identifying those with the greatest need and ensuring that so far as possible and subject to reasonable countervailing factors (for example, past failure to pay rent etc) they are given priority."
Housing Act 1996 167
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Howard v Charlton Times, 19 August 2002; Gazette, 26 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1086
25 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing, Contract
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.
Mobiles Home Act 1983 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nottingham City Council v Thames Times, 19 August 2002
26 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward and Sir Martin Nourse
Housing, Crime, Local Government
The local authority sought an order under the Act after its staff, working at a centre on the estate where the defendant resided had been threatened. Held: There was no sufficient nexus between the staff and residence on the estate. The Enfield case was binding. The staff were not residents entitled to protection under the Act, and protection must be sought elsewhere.
Housing Act 1996 152
1 Cites


 
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v London Rent Assessment Co Chairman [2002] EWCA Civ 1236
29 Jul 2002
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dunn v Bradford Metropolitan District Council etc; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 05 September 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1137; [2003] 15 HLR 154
 
Regina (Khan) v Oxfordshire County Council Gazette, 31 October 2002; Times, 04 November 2002
4 Oct 2002
QBD
Moses J
Immigration, Housing, Local Government
The applicant sought review of the authority's decision not to offer her housing. She was subject to immigration control. She had been the victim of domestic violence and of abduction. Held: The authority could provide assistance under either Act, unless prohibited by statute. The limitation in the 1948 statute did apply to restrict the authority's decision under the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances the decision not to provide assistance was unreasonable, and review was granted.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

 
Van Aken v Camden London Borough Council Times, 28 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002
11 Oct 2002
CA
Ward, Mummery, Parker LLJ
Housing, Litigation Practice
The appellant sought to appeal a review of his application for housing. The appeal was lodged at court after close of business on the last day of the statutory time limit. The court decided it was delivered out of time. Held: The Act required the appeal to be delivered. That denoted a unilateral act, not requiring any acknowledgement from the court. The case of Aadan was a transactional process, and therefore did not apply in this case.
Housing Act 1996 204
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Aken v London Borough of Camden [2002] EWCA Civ 1724
11 Oct 2002
CA

Housing

Housing Act 1996 204
[ Bailii ]
 
Hetoja, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 11 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2146 (Admin)
24 Oct 2002
Admn
Lightman J
Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights, Housing
The applicant was an asylum seeker reliant upon the respondent for housing, being otherwise destitute. She sought housing which would not split up her extended family. She claimed that the regulations excluded from the respondent's decision making process an element, her right to respect for family life, which he was obliged under the Convention to have regard to. Held: The regulations required the respondent not to take account of the applicant's own personal preferences. This did not prevent him having proper regard for her circumstances, including the factors which she sought to have reflected, in his duty to provide adequate accommodation. The regulations did not conflict with her rights.
National Assistance Act 1948 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 97(2) - Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (2000 No 704) 13(2)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8
[ Bailii ]
 
Bernard, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin); [2003] HRLR 111; [2003] LGR 423
25 Oct 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Damages, Human Rights, Housing
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. In breach of their duty under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, the respondent council failed for some 20 months to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The consequences were appalling. The wife was doubly incontinent and, because there was no wheelchair access to the lavatory, was forced to defecate and urinate on the living-room floor. And she was unable to play any part in looking after her six children. Held: The respondent's failure was a clear breach of the claimant's article 8 rights and not at all finely balanced. The court awarded £10,000 damages.
Human Rights Act 1998 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2282 Admin; [2003] HLR 27; [2003] HRLR 111
25 Oct 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Damages, Human Rights, Housing
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, failed to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The claimants had had their human rights infringed by the respondents who had failed in their duties to provide assistance and so to respect their rights to private and family life. Held: The courts must respect the intention of the Act and the seriousness of the infringement. The council had not acted for some 20 months. There is no comparable tort, but awards should neither be low or high in comparison. Awards or maladministration are comparable. £10,000 was appropriate here.
Human Rights Act 1988 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Clitheroe, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham [2002] EWCA Civ 1694
4 Nov 2002
CA

Local Government, Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Betts v London Borough of Ealing [2002] EWCA Civ 1696
5 Nov 2002
CA

Housing, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2003] 2 WLR 1533; Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1533; [2003] Ch 380
5 Nov 2002
CA
Kennedy, Buxton, Keene LJJ
Discrimination, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Housing
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family. Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning of an article of the Convention, in the same way as it is bound by such a decision as to the meaning of purely domestic law. The Convention must be construed as a living instrument. The decision in Fitzpatrick should be revisited. Sexual orientation is now clearly recognised as an impermissible ground of discrimination. Such discrimination need not be analysed as a form of sex discrimination, but rather more generally, following Salgueiro. Paragraph 2 clearly infringed the Convention. It is the duty of the courts to protect minorities.
Buxton LJ held that: "But I have no hesitation in saying that issues of discrimination, which it is conceded we are concerned with in this case, do have high constitutional importance, and are issues that the courts should not shrink from. In such cases, deference has only a minor role to play."
Rent Act 1977 Sch 1 Para 2 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 12 Art 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Lester) v London Rent Assessment Committee Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003
7 Nov 2002
QBD
Sir Richard Tucker
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The tenant sought to request the Committee to fix his rent. He sent the application, but it was not received before it came into effect. He appealed a rejection of his claim as out of time. Held: The regulation required the rent to be referred to the committee before the new rent came into effect. That required the notice to be received in time. A reference to the committee could not be construed to include the sending of the notice.
Housing Act 1988 13(4)
1 Citers


 
Cumpsty, Regina (on the Application of) v Rent Service [2002] EWHC 2526 (Admin)
8 Nov 2002
Admn
Pitchford J
Housing

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Cumpsty) v The Rent Service Times, 05 December 2002
8 Nov 2002
QBD
Pichford J
Housing, Benefits, Human Rights
The claimant sought to challenge the way the respondent selected the local reference rent. Held: The determination of the rent was a determination of his civil rights and obligations, and the claimant was entitled to a fair trial. However the Rent Officer was an independent and impartial tribunal, and, provided the Officer gave sufficient reasons for his decision, the procedure did not infringe the claimant's human rights.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 - Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 No 1984)

 
El-Mharraf, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1746
11 Nov 2002
CA

Housing, Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Ekwuru v City of Westminster [2002] EWCA Civ 1735
12 Nov 2002
CA
Aldous LJ
Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Fradkina v Network Housing Association [2002] EWCA Civ 1715
13 Nov 2002
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O'Byrne Times, 18 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] UKHL 45; [2003] 1 All ER 15; [2003] HLR 30; [2002] 48 EGCS 138; [2002] 1 WLR 3250; [2002] NPC 142; [2003] BLGR 1
14 Nov 2002
HL
Bingham of Cornhill, Hope of Craighead, Hutton, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL
Land, Local Government, Housing
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order requiring the sale. Held: The 1985 Act made no reference to the 1938 Act, because it was not imagined that they would conflict. The 1938 Act restricted voluntary sales by Authorities. The 1985 imposed obligations to sell. The obligations created did not conflict. The obligation to sell stood.
Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 5 - Housing Act 1985 118
1 Cites

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Gazette, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2400 (Admin)
19 Nov 2002
Admn
Burton J
Human Rights, Housing
The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, since many gypsies did not now seek a roving life. Held: The onus of justifying an interference in the applicant's human rights lay on the authorities. However, other arrangements did exist for those who wanted a more settled life. The earlier position remained appropriate. The different treatment of the applicants was justified in the pursuance of a legitimate aim.
Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part 1 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nadine Delson v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWCA Civ 1894
19 Nov 2002
CA

Housing, Human Rights
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of second application for permission to apply for judicial review. Held: It was not sustainable to suggest that the section was incompatible with the cliamant's human rights. Leave to appeal was refused.
Housing Act 1985 93(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Stonebridge Housing Action Trust v Gabbidon and Another Times, 13 December 2002
21 Nov 2002
ChD
Lloyd J
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The landlord sought possession of a flat on the grounds that there were arrears of rent, and that one of the tenants had used it for the sale of drugs. It now appealed a suspension of the order, saying that the unlawful user meant that suspension should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Held: The Mousah case did establish that possession should be granted, but it had not decided whether a stay could be granted. Lloyd J. did "not accept that the drug incidents were conclusive factors which required [the judge] to reject the tenant's application whatever might be the other relevant circumstances." It was necessary to examine with care the facts of the individual case. The offending tenant had left, and the judge was not compelled to make the order immediate. The judge had correctly addressed the three elements of the existence of grounds, the reasonableness of the order, and whether his discretion to suspend should be exercised. His decision was not to be interfered with.
Lloyd J said: "albeit that the observations of the Court of Appeal in City of Bristol v. Mousah are cogent, they do not by themselves compel the conclusion that when the court is addressing the question ["as to whether it should exercise its wide discretion under s.85 of the 1985 Act to suspend a possession order or to stay execution"] it can come to only one possible answer in a case where incidents [of the kind in the present case] – which are to some extent comparable with those that were issues in the Mousah case – have been proved".
Housing Act 1985 85
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ashiana Housing Association v Ali and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1899
2 Dec 2002
CA

Housing
Anti-social behaviour of tenants
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Giles) v Fareham Borough Council
13 Dec 2002
QBD
Supperstone QC
Housing, Local Government
The tenant challenged by way of judicial review the council's policy which allowed them to defer receipt for five years of any application for housing from someone who had been evicted from one of their properties for a reason other than debt. Held: The Act gave a wide discretion to local authorities as to how they managed the allocation of properties. That discretion would include the ability to defer applications. Here the period was discretionary, with no minimum, and the policy was lawful.
Housing Act 1996 159(7) 167(6)

 
Medina Housing Association v Case [2002] EWCA Civ 2001; [2003] HLR 37
16 Dec 2002
CA
Kaly LJ
Housing, Litigation Practice
The claimant had obtained an order for possession against the defendant for her repeated anti-social behaviour. The court granted in addition to the possession order an injunction restraining the defendant from coming near the premises for a further five years. Held: The jurisdiction to make such an injunction lasted only as long as did the contract underlying it. Once possession was taken, the contract came to an end, and so did the jurisdiction for an injunction. The order had been wrongly made and was discharged. Kaly LJ: "Parliament has itself recognised the problems that this situation can cause and has made provision in some circumstances to deal with the problems that arise. Section 152(1) of the Housing Act 1996 permits the grant of an injunction to prohibit antisocial behaviour but only to a local authority, and such an application therefore could not be made by the respondent. Parliament has not seen fit to give any wider statutory power than that which is contained in section 152(1), which would enable the housing authority to take action in circumstances such as this. That is why they have had to seek to rely on the common law and simply to seek an injunction as part of their contractual rights. Those rights extend up to the termination of the contract but no further than that."
Housing Act 1996 152(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ibrahim v Redbridge London Borough Council Times, 27 December 2002
17 Dec 2002
QBD
Ligtman J
Housing
The claimant had sought to be housed by the respondent for seven years. She had been temporarily rehoused, but because the council implemented a policy of rehousing according to current need, she lost her priority. Held: The policy was lawful. The council faced overwhelming demand, and the selection between schemes was a political one. The scheme reflected the policy of the section in reflecting current need, however unfairly it affected the claimant.
Housing Act 1996 167(2)


 
 MC v Italy; ECHR 19-Dec-2002 - 32391/96; [2002] ECHR 837
 
Scurci Chimenti v Italy 33227/96
19 Dec 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Housing
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
The applicant had let her flat. Her action to recover possession through the courts had taken 10 years, largely because of the lack of police support in enforcing her lawful attempts to recover possession under court orders, and she complained that this infringed her Protocol 1 article 1 rights. Held: The court in Saffi had stated its view of the law in this situation. The case was well founded, and the claimant was awarded damages and costs.
European Convention on Human Rights 1
1 Cites


 
Swindon Borough Council v Aston Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1850; [2003] HLR 610
19 Dec 2002
CA
Schiemann and Jonathan Parker LJJ, Pumfrey J
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession under the new tenancy agreement. The tenant appealed a finding that he no longer enjoyed the original secure tenancy. Held: After the original breach, the tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser. However the continued occupation could not be referred to the tolerance of his occupation, and had to be characterized as a tenancy. All the arrears had been paid off so the order ceased to be enforceable. The later tenancy agreement could not alter that situation.
Housing Act 1985 85
1 Cites

1 Citers

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