The tenants held an introductory tenancy under the Act. The council sought possession, after giving notice, and after its review under the Act. The tenants objected, but the Council denied the right of the County Court to hear the objection, arguing that the court had no discretion but to order possession, that the right to appeal review was not a private law right, and the County Court had no jurisdiction in judicial review.
Held: The Council’s appeal was allowed. The right under an introductory tenancy was only to remain into possession until and unless a possession order was made. An introductory tenant could not raise a defence to a claim for possession when that defence was based on the contentions that (a) there had been no breaches of the tenancy agreement (the substantive ground relied on by the Council for bringing the instant proceedings), (b) the relevant Regulations had not been complied with, and (c) there had been a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice in the conduct of the review by the Panel. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Judge, Sir John Knox
Citations:
Times 12-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1967, (1999) 31 HLR 810, [1999] 1 WLR 809, [1999] L and TR 190
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996 Part V 125(1) 127 128, Housing Act 1996 125(1), Introductory Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997, County Court Act 1984 38(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
Cited by:
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
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 . .
Disapproved in part – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145446
