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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 60 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Tetteh v Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council [2005] HLR 21; [2004] EWCA Civ 1775
2004
CA
Gage LJ
Housing
Gage LJ placed emphasis on the assumption that "the ordinary homeless person" was a notional homeless person based on the particular authority's experience.
Housing Act 1996 189

 
Beale and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Camden [2004] EWHC 6 (Admin)
8 Jan 2004
Admn

Local Government, Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Newham v Ria and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 41
15 Jan 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin v Westminster City Council Times, 04 February 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 108; Gazette, 11 March 2004; [2004] HLR 32
28 Jan 2004
CA
Kennedy, Clarke, Jacob LJJ
Housing
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority. Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed strictly. It asked whether, if he was left homeless he would be less able to fend for himself, so as to suffer some particluar harm. The words of the Homelessness Code were for guidance only and could not override the words of the Act. The Act did not ask whether harm was likely, but whether it would occur. The Act was not to be read down, and the appeal failed. The Secretray of State might wish to reconsider the words used in the Code of Guidance.
Kennedy LJ said: "The status of the code is clear from Section 182(1) of the Act. In exercising their functions local housing authorities must "have regard to" the code, but if the code differs from the statute, as interpreted by this court, it is the statute which prevails."
Housing Act 1996 189(1)(c)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Laporte, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Newham [2004] EWHC 227 (Admin)
30 Jan 2004
Admn

Housing, Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] UKHL 4; Times, 06 February 2004; Gazette, 04 March 2004; [2004] 2 AC 159
5 Feb 2004
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Housing, Immigration
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having been rehoused in other areas had lost any connection with the area. The applicants said that the re-housing had been compulsory, being part of a policy of dispersal of asylum applicants, and so their connection with the appellate local authorities was not lost. Held: The authorities' appeals were dismissed. The applicants had not exercised any real sense of choice in accepting dispersal. It was wrong to describe a Hobson's choice as a real choice. If asked 'Did you choose to live in Glasgow' the only true answer could be 'No.' A normal residence which might operate to defeat a local connection with a previous area had to be of the resident's own choice. This choice had not been freely made.
Housing Act 1996 198
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Robinson and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 342; Gazette, 11 March 2004
11 Feb 2004
CA

Benefits, Housing
The tenant had entered into a tenancy agreement, but only took up occupation ten days later. Held: The tenant was not entitled to housing benefit until the day he actually took up occupation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Adan v London Borough of Hounslow and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 101
19 Feb 2004
CA

Housing, Benefits

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987
[ Bailii ]
 
Loveridge and Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173; Times, 27 February 2004
20 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Buxton Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Thomas
Housing, Litigation Practice
The landowner sought to recover possession of land occupied under an agreement by a mobile home owner. Held: It was necessary for the land owner to show that he had complied with the requirements under the Act. It was insufficient for the matters to be admitted in the pleadings. Pleadings are not superfluous and are still "critical to identify the issues".
Lord Phillips MR said: "It is on the basis of the pleadings that the parties decide what evidence they will need to place before the court and what preparations are necessary before the trial. Where one party advances a case that is inconsistent with his pleadings, it often happens that the other party takes no point on this. Where the departure from the pleadings causes no prejudice, or where for some other reason it is obvious that the court, if asked, will give permission to amend the pleading, the other party may be sensible to take no pleading point. Where, however, departure from a pleading will cause prejudice, it is in the interests of justice that the other party should be entitled to insist that this is not permitted unless the pleading is appropriately amended. That then introduces, in its proper context, the issue of whether or not the party in question should be permitted to advance a case which has not hitherto been pleaded." The court rejected the submission that the court should "disregard the pleading rather than . . close its eyes to what are admitted to be the true facts".
Mobile Homes Act 1983 Sch 1 para 4(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal [2004] EWCA Civ 55; Times, 27 February 2004; [2005] QB 37; [2004] NPC 28; [2004] HLR 29; [2004] BLGR 696; [2004] 3 WLR 417; [2004] Eu LR 628
24 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Wilson
Housing, Consumer
The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants. Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to Wednesbury considerations. Nor was it for the proposed tenants' views to hold sway. At first instance the court held the tenant to have a right to express a view, but that right was not granted by statute nor common law considerations of procedural fairness. However the terms of a tenancy were governed by Unfair Contract Term Regulations so as to disallow unfair terms. The dominant purpose of the European Directive implemented by the 1999 Regulations is that of consumer protection, albeit promoted in the context of the internal market. The 1999 Regulations do apply to contracts affecting land.
Laws LJ: "I am clear that the applicant's subjective view of suitability is not a factor which a reasonable council is obliged in principle to regard as relevant to their decision . . . No doubt where an authority operates a procedure by which an applicant is in fact afforded an opportunity to view and comment, it would be difficult see how the authority might then rationally decline to consider what the applicant had to say. Of course I do not suggest that the applicant's views are not capable of being treated by a reasonable authority as relevant to its decision. I hold only that they are not required by law to be so treated."
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Salford City Council v Garner Times, 10 March 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 364
27 Feb 2004
CA
Chadwick, Kay LJJ
Housing
The tenancy had been an introductory tenancy. The council sought to terminate the tenancy, delivering the papers to the court before the anniversary. Held: The proceedings were not begun under the section until the court issued the claim form. That had occurred outside the twelve month period, and the trial tenancy had expired and the grounds were not applicable.
Maurice Kay LJ denied that there was any analogy between the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and the provisions of the Act: "In my judgment there is no such analogy. That specific provision is, as my Lord has demonstrated, based on earlier authority [Pritam Kaur] decided in the context of the bringing of proceedings for the purposes of the Limitation Act. Here the language in issue is not the "bringing of proceedings" but the "beginning of proceedings". Where there is a general provision aimed at a point of time at which proceedings are started it follows that the assimilation of when proceedings are begun and when they are started is conclusive. The extended meaning, given specifically in the context of the bringing of the proceedings for the purposes of the Limitation Act, has no bearing on the present circumstances."
Housing Act 1996 130
1 Citers


 
McDonagh and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough Of Hounslow [2004] EWHC 511 (Admin)
2 Mar 2004
Admn
Sullivan J
Housing
The claimants sought judicial review of the decision to refuse them housing support, and instead to offer tickets to allow them to return to Ireland.
[ Bailii ]
 
Porteous v West Dorset District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 244
4 Mar 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
New Charter Housing (North) Ltd v Ashcroft [2004] EWCA Civ 310
8 Mar 2004
CA

Housing, Local Government

Crime and Disorder Act 1988 1C
[ Bailii ]
 
McCammon-McKenzie, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2004] EWHC 612 (Admin)
9 Mar 2004
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Connor and Another v Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2004] EWCA Civ 394; (2004) HLR 37
30 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing

Housing Act 1996 191
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
M v London Borough of Islington and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 235; Times, 22 April 2004
2 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Buxton, And Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Housing, Immigration
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal. Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had power to provide her with assistance. Though the authority had no duty to the parent whilst here unlawfully, that said nothing about the duty to the child. The statutory Guidance permits the provision of accommodation for a period until travel arrangements are made by the Home Office. Thart assistance need not be limited to ten days.
Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3) - Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 - Children Act 1989 17
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Campbell and others v South Northamptonshire District Council, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 409; Times, 23 April 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 387
7 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Jacob
Benefits, Housing, Human Rights
The claimants were members of the Jesus Fellowship church, living communally. Their claim for housing benefit was rejected on the basis that the payment made was not by way of a commercial rental. Held: The court could take into account the background of the payments in deciding whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis. To take that into account was not discrimination infringing their freedom of religion. The question posed was one of fact, and the Convention did not operate to make evidence inadmissible on such an issue.
Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 7
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
English Churches Housing Group v Shine [2004] EWCA Civ 434; Times, 02 June 2004; Gazette, 20 May 2004; [2004] HLR 42
7 Apr 2004
CA
Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Wall
Housing, Damages
The claimant was a secure tenant of English Churches Housing Group. He was unemployed and lived on benefits. He claimed damages against his landlord for breaches of the repairing covenants implied by section 11. The court considerd the appropriate level of damages. For the breach of landlord's covenant to repair. Held: The court allowed the landlord's appeal and reduced the damages to £8,000, subject to set-off in respect of some of the landlord's costs. Where a tenant was awarded damages for a landlord's breach of his covenant to repair, the damages awarded should reflect the rent payable under the lease. The tenant here had the benefit of a secure tenancy at a rent well below the market rent, and the damages were reduced accordingly. The court criticised the conduct of the hearing by the judge: "[The judge's] behaviour is unacceptable. He is both abrupt and discourteous. He makes it clear he is not prepared to entertain argument, and gives no reasons."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gibson v Robb; SCSf 26-Apr-2004 - [2004] ScotSC 30
 
Lomotey v London Borough of Enfield [2004] EWCA Civ 627
7 May 2004
CA

Housing
Whether correct decision that claimant had intentionally deprived herself of an available place to live
[ Bailii ]
 
Ainsdale Investments Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Times, 02 June 2004; Gazette, 03 June 2004
14 May 2004
QBD
Owen J
Housing
The property was mixed commercial and residential use. It was in poor repair, and the local authority resolved for its compulsory purchase. The company challenged the decision saying the wrong tests had been applied. Held: The challenge was in effect to the inspector's decision. S17 did authorise a resolution if there was mixed use, if the acquisition of the commercial parts was incidental to that of the residential parts. There was no basis for an 'absolute necessity' test. The test was whether the property was properly called a house.
Housing Act 1985 17 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981

 
Clays Lane Housing Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Housing Corporation [2004] EWHC 1084 (Admin)
14 May 2004
Admn

Housing

Housing Act 1996 2(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Rhodes v Kensington Housing Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 692
17 May 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, [2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)
26 May 2004
Admn
Keith J
Housing, Immigration, Children

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maughan, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 1429 (Admin)
26 May 2004
Admn

Housing

Housing Act 1996
[ Bailii ]
 
Elmbridge Housing Trust v O'Donoghue [2004] EWCA Civ 939
16 Jun 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent [2004] EWCA Civ 715; Times, 29 June 2004
17 Jun 2004
CA
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Bodey Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing, Personal Injury
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 from a balcony and suffered injury. Held: In view of the Admas case, the policy was understandable. There was no general duty to supply child proof locks.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza; HL 21-Jun-2004 - [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 3 WLR 113; [2004] 2 AC 557; [2004] 3 All ER 411; 16 BHRC 671; [2004] 2 FCR 481; [2004] UKHRR 827; [2004] 2 P & CR DG17; [2004] 2 FLR 600; [2004] Fam Law 641; [2004] NPC 100; [2004] 27 EGCS 128

 
 Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council; ChD 22-Jun-2004 - [2005] 1 ALL ER 795; [2004] EWHC 2039 (Ch)
 
Council of the City of Manchester v Sharon Romano, Yvonne Samariz [2004] EWCA (Civ) 834; Times, 27 July 2004; [2004] HLR 878; [2005] 1 WLR 2775
1 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Jacob
Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights
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".
Housing Act 1985 Sch2 Gr5 - Disability Discrimination Act 1995 22 - Human Rights Act 1998 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clore v Macnicol; CA 13-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1055
 
Rogerson v Wigan Metropolican Borough Council [2005] 2 All ER 1000; [2004] EWHC 1677 (QB); [2005] HLR 10; [2004] 2 P&CR DG21; [2005] BLGR 549
14 Jul 2004
QBD
Elias J
Housing
The claimant sought damages under the 1977 Act. The defendant said it had behaved lawfully. He had been housed in a hostel pending a decision on the application for permanent housing as a homeless person, which the defendant said excluded him from protection under the 1977 Act. Held: The claimant's appeal failed.
Auld LJ said: "the solution to this issue rests upon the proper meaning to be given to the concept of "a separate and self-contained set of premises". I do not think that it can simply mean physically separate and self-contained, for two reasons. First, if residential accommodation is provided in self contained premises then they must perforce be physically separated from the rest of the block of accommodation. So the concept of "separate" must be directed to some other aspect. Second, the notion of separate accommodation more naturally, in my view, is referring to accommodation which is separate for each person (with or without a partner). It is not appropriate to describe someone as being in separate accommodation if they are being compelled to share some of the facilities with someone they have not chosen. The separate bedroom does not amount to separate residential accommodation. In this case nobody was in fact required to share the accommodation whilst the appellant was there, but Mr Stark, in my opinion rightly, accepted that this was irrelevant. The potential to require sharing was no different to actual sharing."
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 - Housing Act 1985 622 - Housing Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 925; Times, 21 July 2004; [2005] LGR 241
15 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Holman The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
Housing
A homeless gypsy caravan dweller applied for housing. The authority offered temporary bed and breakfast accomodation. She complained that she had an aversion to living in bricks and mortar. Held: The authority had discharged its function. The duty of the authority was to secure the availability of suitable accommodation within a reasonable period of time, the reasonableness of the period depending on the circumstances of each case and on what accommodation was available.
Auld LJ said that the requirement to accord respect to the applicant's gypsy culture: "requires the authority carefully to examine a gypsy's claim for such special consideration and, if satisfied that it is genuine, whether in all the circumstances of the case, it should attempt to meet it, and, if so, how. Those circumstances should, of course, include the likely duration of occupation in respect of which an offer is to be made. However, if despite such examination and, where appropriate, a genuine consideration of ways and means of meeting the gypsy's claim, an authority fails to provide a caravan site or pitch, it would only amount to a breach of its statutory duty or violate Article 8 if it produced an offer falling below the Wednesbury minimum line."
Housing Act 1996 202
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest v Roberts [2004] EWCA (Civ) 940
15 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Sedley The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
Housing
Secure tenancy obtained by misleading application - grant of possession order
Housing Act 1985
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Burns, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2004] EWHC 1901 (Admin)
19 Jul 2004
Admn

Housing, Immigration

Housing Act 1996
[ Bailii ]
 
Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 926; Times, 26 July 2004; [2005] QB 352; [2004] 3 WLR 1396
20 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden
Housing, Local Government, Human Rights
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the authority once the trusts licence was revoked. Held: The properties were short life properties, being scheduled for eventual demolition. The original arrangement was informal being only later reduced to writing in a formal licence. There was no basis for saying that a non-secure licence became a secure tenancy on the revocation of the head lease. The trust acted as principal and not as the authority's agent. As to the tenants' claims under article 8 of the Convention: "The fact is that Lambeth has an unqualified right to possession. And on the basis of the majority opinions in Qazi by which we are bound that is a sufficient answer to the claims under Article 8" As to eth Connors decision: (Auld LJ) "Whilst there is, in those general statements of principle, some support for the argument of Mr Luba, they cannot, it seems to us, affect this court's assessment of the decision in Qazi. The general statement of principle in paragraph 83 of the Court's judgment is based upon the Court's decisions in Buckley, and Chapman, to which it refers, both of which were cited to and considered by the House of Lords in Qazi. Connors is therefore only of assistance to the courts of this country in relation to cases involving gypsies."
Housing Act 1985 Part IV
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clays Lane Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Housing Corporation [2004] EWCA Civ 1183
28 Jul 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Blecic v Croatia 59532/00; [2004] ECHR 397; (2005) 41 EHRR 185
29 Jul 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Housing
The applicant had for many years before 1992 had a protected tenancy of a publicly-owned flat in Zadar. Under Croatian law a specially-protected tenancy might be terminated if the tenant ceased to occupy the flat for a continuous period of six months, but not if the tenant's failure was attributable to medical treatment, military service or "other justified reasons". The applicant left to visit her daughter in Rome. War then intervened, conditions in Zadar were bad, and the applicant did not return until a time by which another occupant had, without permission, moved into the flat. The local authority had already initiated proceedings to terminate the tenancy. The applicant claimed that she had had justified reasons for not using the flat. This was accepted by an intermediate court, but rejected at first instance and by the Supreme Court. Thus, without justified reasons, the applicant had no grounds for resisting the termination of her tenancy. Held: The premises in question were, for purposes of article 8, the applicant's home. The facts disclosed an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her home. Under the domestic property law there was no arguable defence to the claim once she had been found to have no justified reasons for her absence. The court considered, at some length, the excepting conditions in article 8. The interference had a legitimate aim. The interference was necessary in a democratic society, namely whether the interference answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court respected the margin of appreciation accorded to national authorities and found that the applicant had had a fair opportunity to put forward her views and resist the claim made against her. The claim was inadmissible.
"State intervention in socio-economic matters such as housing is often necessary in securing social justice and public benefit. In this area, the margin of appreciation available to the State in implementing social and economic policies is necessarily a wide one. The domestic authorities' judgment as to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of those policies should be respected unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation. Although this principle was originally set forth in the context of complaints under article 1 of Protocol No 1 . . the State enjoys an equally wide margin of appreciation as regards respect for the home in circumstances such as those prevailing in the present case, in the context of article 8. Thus, the Court will accept the judgment of the domestic authorities as to what is necessary in a democratic society unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation, that is, unless the measure employed is manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co; CA 29-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1017; Times, 27 August 2004; [2005] QB 303; [2004] 3 WLR 1321
 
McCann v Birmingham City Council [2004] EWHC 2156 (Admin)
23 Sep 2004
Admn
Leveson J
Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another [2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin); Times, 20 October 2004; [2005] 1 WLR 865
7 Oct 2004
Admn
Keith J
Housing, Human Rights
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter had been settled the court was invited to pursue the decision. Held: The Act was intended to fulfil the pupose of promoting family life, and therefore the human rights of the claimant were engaged under Art 14, and 'the Council's refusal to treat the Claimant as having a priority need for accommodation in circumstances where a parent with a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control would have been treated as having a priority need for accommodation amounted to an infringement of her right under Art. 14 to enjoy her right to respect for her family life under Art. 8 without discrimination.' A declaration of incompatibility was made.
Housing Act 1996 185(4)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bibi, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden [2004] EWHC 2527 (Admin)
11 Oct 2004
Admn

Housing, Family
The court had made a joint residence order, but the housing department offered the wife only a one bedroomed department which would not allow her children to stay with her. Held: The local authority decision had to be set aside. In future when making such orders the exact for of residence required might be set out and the local authority consulted.
[ Bailii ]
 
Day, Regina (on the Application of) v Waltham Forest [2004] EWHC 2375 (Admin)
12 Oct 2004
Admn

Housing, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster [2004] EWCA Civ 1307; Times, 26 October 2004; [2005] BLGR 411; [2005] HLR 9
18 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Ward Jackson, Mr Justice Jackson
Housing, Human Rights
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant asserted bias on the part of the head of the housing needs and resources of the local authority in conducting the review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to her as a homeless person. Held: The question in each case is whether or not all the circumstances which have a bearing on the question whether the reviewing officers were biased would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that they were not impartial. No suggestion was made that either reviewing officer was actually biased. The reviewing officer is not reviewing his or her own earlier decision but is starting afresh to review a second decision as to the suitability of the accommodation offered to the homeless person in the letter of offer made to him or her. Here there was no apparent bias, and the appeal by the local authorities was allowed.
"Trained decision-makers should not be treated as inferior beings intellectually unable to approach the task with an open mind. The fair-minded and informed observer would have that in mind."
Housing Act 1996 202
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Qabal Hassan Sahardid v London Borough of Camden [2004] EWCA Civ 1485
26 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Jusice Aldous Lord Justice Jacob
Housing
Priority need
Housing Act 1996
[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2004] EWHC 2463 (Admin); Times, 03 January 2005
29 Oct 2004
Admn
Silber J
Housing
The applicant had sought emergency housing with her husband, but refused accomodation on a particuar estate for her safety. She had then been evicted form the temporary housing supplied on the application. After a series of temporary arrangements she applied again. Her application was accepted but the previous offer and refusal were said to remain in effect. Held: The decision in Fahia was to be preferred to that in Campisi, with the result that the authority need reconsider only if the claimant could establish that she was now in a different position. No material change had been shown, and the appeal was rejected.
Housing Act 1996 184
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Enfield v Kruja [2004] EWCA Civ 1769
5 Nov 2004
CA

Housing

Housing Act 1996 204
[ Bailii ]
 
Clays Lane Housing Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Housing Corporation [2004] EWCA Civ 1658
8 Dec 2004
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Beltekian v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1784; Times, 15 December 2004
8 Dec 2004
CA
Brooke LJ, Clarke LJ, Neuberger LJ
Benefits, Housing
The council had determined the applicant's housing benefit. He requested a review. An oral hearing was arranged, at which he sought to raise a new point. He was not allowed to do so. Held: The review procedure was limited to a review of the decision itself. If the claimant wanted to appeal the decision he had been able to do so, but there was no appeal from the review.
Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 - Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Grant [2004] EWCA Civ 1711; Times, 05 January 2005
16 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Chadwick
Housing, Children, Immigration, Human Rights
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.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Local Government Act 2000 2
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Osmani v London Borough of Camden; CA 16-Dec-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1706; (2005) HLR 22
 
Moat Housing Group South Ltd v Harris and Another Times, 13 January 2005
17 Dec 2004
CA
Brooke, Dyson LJJ
Housing
The Housing Association had obtained a possession order against the appellant family, who now sought a stay of execution pending their appeal. Held: The presence of children in the house meant that the balance had to include consideration of their interests. The family had been involved in numerous neighbour disputes and had been made subject to Anti-Social Behaviour orders the effect of which would be to exclude them from the home. No discussions had taken place as to the children's schooling arrangements, and no warning given of the applications for immediate orders. Since the interim stay, the family appeared to have abided by the orders. A stay should be granted but the family would have to note that any breaches would put them in contempt of court.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hall v London Borough of Wandsworth [2005] 2 All ER 192; [2004] EWCA Civ 1740; [2005] HLR 23; Times, 07 January 2005
17 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been identified in the decisions, but they had not been given opportunity themselves to make representations about the decisions. Held: The scheme required the reviewing officer to give advance notice of an adverse decision and to allow representations. There was no reason to limit that duty to situations which might give rise to a legal challenge to the decision. The duty arose whenever, looking at the matter broadly, it seemed that an important issue had not been addressed.
Carnwath LJ said: "Thus, the requirement for advance notice of the intended decision in certain cases does not derive directly from the statute itself. The thinking behind such a requirement seems to be that a bare right to make representations on the first decision will not be sufficient, if that decision was itself flawed in some respect, so that it does not represent a full and reliable consideration of the material issues. In that event the applicant's rights are reinforced in two ways: first, by requiring the reviewing officer to give advance notice of a proposed adverse decision and the reasons for it; and, secondly, by allowing the applicant to make both written and oral representations on it."
As to the meaning of 'deficiency', Carnwath LJ said: "The word "deficiency" does not have any particular legal connotation. It simply means "something lacking". There is nothing in the words of the rule to limit it to failings which would give grounds for legal challenge. If that were the intention, one would have expected it to have been stated expressly. Furthermore, since the judgment is that of the reviewing officer, who is unlikely to be a lawyer, it would be surprising if the criterion were one depending solely on legal judgment. On the other hand, the "something lacking" must be of sufficient importance to the fairness of the procedure to justify an extra procedural safeguard. Whether that is so involves an exercise of "evaluative judgment" . . on which the officer's conclusion will only be challengeable on Wednesbury grounds.
To summarise, the reviewing officer should treat reg.8(2) as applicable, not merely when he finds some significant legal or procedural error in the decision, but whenever (looking at the matter broadly and untechnically) he considers that an important aspect of the case was either not addressed, or not addressed adequately, by the original decision-maker. In such a case, if he intends to confirm the decision, he must give notice of the grounds on which he intends to do so, and provide an opportunity for written and (if requested) oral representations."
Housing Act 1996 189(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Solon South West Housing Association Limited v Lisa James Eran James [2004] EWCA Civ 1847
20 Dec 2004
CA

Housing, Evidence
Hearsay evidence is available on an application for an ASBO or the trial of a possession action.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nutting v Southern Housing Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 2982 (Ch); Times, 05 January 2005
21 Dec 2004
ChD
Evans-Lombe J
Housing
The deceased tenant and the appellant had lived together in a violent alcoholic homosexual relationship. The appellant had claimed to have succeeded to the tenancy on his partner's death. The authority said the relationship had been at an end, and no succession took place. Held: The appellant had failed to demonstrate that his relationship with the deceased displayed a sufficient commitment to permanence to meet the test required for a succession.
Housing Act 1988 17
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others [2004] EWCA Civ 1736; Times, 11 January 2005; [2005] 1 WLR 3133; [2005] 2 All ER 667; [2005] HLR 17
21 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Mance And Lord Justice Dyson
Housing, Litigation Practice
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it was said that the situation arose from maladministration by the local authority of their housing benefit, and that this was an exceptional circumstance to allow an adjournment. Held: The effective date was the date of the hearing. The judge had no discretion to adjourn, and the failures of the local authority did not create an exceptional circumstance. To adjourn the case would deprive the landlord of its claim. "the authorities tend in our judgment to show that the court should not adjourn a hearing date for the purpose of enabling a defendant to rely on a subsequent change in the law or the facts and thereby defeat the claim. " and "We acknowledge that this conclusion will lead to tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit having no defence to a claim for possession in circumstances where they are not at fault. The statutory scheme is, therefore, potentially draconian in its application."
Housing Act 1988 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
North British Housing Association Limited v Lorraine Matthews [2004] EWCA Civ 1736
21 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Dyson The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)
Housing

1 Citers


 
Norwich City Council v Famuyiwa Times, 24 January 2005; [2004] EWCA Civ 1770
21 Dec 2004
CA
Chadwick LJ, Jacob LJ
Housing
When considering making an order for possession for breach of tenancy conditions in that the tenant had behaved in an anti-social way, the judge had ruled out the possibility that she might improve her behaviour. Held: The court should have considered the possibility that he might adjourn the application subject to conditions to give the tenant an opportunity to demonstrate her intention to comply with the tenancy terms.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mark Nutting v Southern Housing Group Limited [2004] EWHC 2982 (Ch)
21 Dec 2004
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
Housing


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