Tag: Housing

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Grillo: CA 13 Jun 1995

There was no general onus on Local Authorities to give reasons for their decisions in the absence of any explicit or particular duty.

Citations:

Independent 13-Jun-1995, (1995) 28 HLR 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.87057

Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon: CA 9 Jun 1999

A provision in a tenancy agreement that the tenancy would cease upon the bankruptcy of the tenant, continued and became part of the terms of a statutory tenancy following the contractual one. The provision was not inconsistent with the idea of the statutory tenancy, and the term was implied into the statutory tenancy.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith and Laws L.JJ. and Jonathan Parker J.)

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-1999, Gazette 03-Jun-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1470, [1999] 1 WLR 1689, [1999] L and TR 481

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 98(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Insolvency

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78822

Regina v Bristol County Court Ex Parte Bradic: CA 1 Sep 1995

An unlawful eviction did not of itself constitute an emergency giving the applicant ‘priority need’ for housing. The event that results in the homelessness of the person claiming a priority need must have the characteristics of being ‘an emergency’ and ‘a disaster’. The omission of the word ‘any’ before the words ‘other disaster’ in the 1985 Act reinforces this reading of the subsection. The court interpreted the words of the subsection to mean an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster of a similar nature. The line is not to be drawn as narrowly as to confine the emergencies which can give rise to a priority need to those amounting to ‘force majeure’. Parliament must have had in mind emergencies caused by fires deliberately or accidentally caused by human beings. The line is to be drawn so as to embrace all emergencies which consist of physical damage to the accommodation of the applicant which have made the accommodation uninhabitable.

Judges:

Roch LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Sep-1995, Independent 01-Sep-1995, (1995) HLR 584

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 59(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Noble v South Herefordshire District Council CA 1983
The argument (that the word ’emergency’ was used in a wider sense than emergencies confined to emergencies arising from disaster) had no force in this case because in the phrase ‘any emergency such as flood, fire or any other disaster’ the words ‘or . .

Cited by:

Cited – Higgs v Brighton and Hove City Council CA 30-Jun-2003
The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster?
Held: There was in fact no explanation available for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.86209

Kelsey Housing Association Ltd v King and Another: CA 8 Aug 1995

The Court dismissed an appeal from a decision to dispense with notice under the section. A notice to quit had been served and a summons for possession issued with an appendix containing details of the allegations of breach of the tenancy agreement and nuisance.Only much later was an application was made to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that the notice did not comply with section 8. The judge ruled that the particulars in the notice were inadequate but dispensed with the need for a notice under section 8(1)(b). In considering the words ‘just and equitable’ the court referred to judgments considering those same words in the context of the Rent Act 1977, which emphasised the necessity to ‘consider all the circumstances’. Every case will depend upon its own facts and the pleaded ground or grounds relied on in the notice. The court must take all the circumstances into account, both from the view of the landlord and the tenant, and decide whether it is just and equitable to dispense with the required particulars.

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 28-Aug-1995, (1995) 28 HLR 270

Statutes:

Housing Act 1986 8(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis CA 9-Apr-2003
The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings.
Held: The transfer moved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.82720

Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee: CA 9 Aug 1995

The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables.
Held: The decision was upheld. A fair rent is a market rent ignoring personal circumstances and scarcity. Comparables were wrongly rejected where discounting for scarcity and security possible. Fair rents were based on market rents, less scarcity and other disregards, and were not reasonable rents in any other sense including their impact on tenants. The Court gave general guidance to rent assessment committees making it clear that they were expected to follow market rent comparables as the best evidence of the starting point for fair rents, to give clear reasons and to explain their determinations with arithmetic if necessary. A ‘fair rent’ under the 1977 Act is the same as a ‘market rent’ under the 1988 Act save for the assumption of no scarcity and allowing for the statutory’disregards’, and that, in assessing a fair rent, regard should be had to market rent comparables if any: ‘… the fair rent to be determined is a market rent less the disregards and discounted for scarcity. Thus, … if there is no scarcity and no disregards then the rents should be the same whether the tenancy is a regulated tenancy or an assured tenancy.’
A fair rent is an adjusted market rent and market rent comparables are relevant to the assessment of a fair rent: ‘In this case there are a number of flats in the same block let on assured tenancies at, by definition, open market rents which are virtually identical to those for which a fair rent is to be determined. In my judgment if, in those circumstances, a Rent Assessment Committee wishes to exercise its discretion to adopt some other comparable or method of assessment it will be failing in its duty to give reasons if it does not explain why.
In this case the third reason given by the Rent Assessment Committee as recorded by the judge was that the registered rent comparables had not been demonstrated to be unsound. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting the assured tenancy comparables. It is not for the court to say in advance what would be a good reason for doing so but if such a reason involves ‘working through’ such comparables so be it: that consequence is no ground for rejecting the validity of its cause. But it should also be noted that the registered rent comparables are not in their nature any more or less sound than the open market rent with or without discount. Any registered rent has built into at least two variables namely the open market rent and the discount for scarcity. Each should have been considered at the time of the original determination. The assessment of the soundness of that registered rent for use as a comparable would require each of those variables to be reconsidered at the time of their possible use as a comparable.
In this connection it was also objected that if the Rent Assessment Committee were required to give detailed reasons that might necessitate giving detailed arithmetical workings or quantifying the degree of scarcity involved contrary to statements in Guppy’s Property v. Knott No 1 … and Metropolitan Properties v. Laufer … But those statements were made in relation to the facts of those cases. It does not follow that there will not be cases in which the duty to give reasons will require such workings or quantification to be afforded.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ. and Sir John May

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Aug-1995, Times 09-Aug-1995, (1995) 28 HLR 107, [1995] 2 EGLR 80

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Spath Home Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee QBD 13-Jul-1994
The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sheppard-Capurro, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel Admn 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Curtis v Chairman of London Rent Assessment Committee; Huntingford and Packford CA 9-Oct-1997
The claimant sought to appeal the quashing of determinations of a fair rent for two properties. . .
See also – Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar QBD 2-Jan-1998
A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.89447

Drake v Whipp: CA 30 Nov 1995

The parties, an unmarried cohabiting couple, disputed their respective shares in a property held in the man’s sole name. Both had made direct contributions both to the purchase of a barn and to its expensive conversion into a home. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that she had only a 14.9% interest on a resulting trust, in the house she and the defendant had occupied together. The property had been purchased for andpound;61,000 of which she had contributed andpound;24,000, with later additional contributions to conversion works. She complained that working on a resulting trust, the costs of acquisition were given undue emphasis.
Held: A beneficial interest in a family home could be presumed from the intention of the parties and their acting in detriment. There was a constructive trust. There was undisputed evidence that she was to have an interest in the property, and she had acted to further that intention and to her detriment. The appeal was allowed, and her interest set at one third. ‘it is not easy to reconcile every judicial utterance in this well-travelled area of the law. A potent source of confusion, to my mind, has been suggestions that it matters not whether the terminology used is that of the constructive trust, to which the intention, actual or imputed, of the parties is crucial, or that of the resulting trust which operates on a presumed intention of the contributing party in the absence of rebutting evidence of actual intention.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Lord Justice Hirst and Mr Justice Forbes

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-1995, [1996] 2 FCR 296, [1995] EWCA Civ 25, (1996) 28 HLR 531, [1996] CLY 5780

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
Cited – Dyer v Dyer 27-Nov-1988
Where property is purchased by one person in the name of another there is a presumption that a resulting trust is created: ‘The clear result of all the cases, without a single exception is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold . .

Cited by:

Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Jones v Kernott SC 9-Nov-2011
Unmarried Couple – Equal division displaced
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Housing, Family

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.80130

Oakley v Birmingham City Council: QBD 8 Jan 1999

The justices had concluded that the layout itself of premises was so unhygienic as to be ‘in a state prejudicial to health.’ The small toilets without a wash basin and next to the kitchen created a risk of cross-infection, and were a statutory nuisance.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v Oakley HL 29-Nov-2000
When considering if premises fell within the section, and were ‘in such a state as to be prejudicial to health’, the court must consider some feature of the premises which was in itself prejudicial. An arrangement of rooms which was unsatisfactory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.84406

Laimond Properties Limited v Al-Shakarchi: CA 10 Feb 1998

If ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ was offered in exchange for a protected tenancy, the court need look only for some security for the tenant, not that he should receive equal protection. Where the landlord persuades the Rent Act protected tenants to surrender their old tenancy before taking a new tenancy, the lessees would not have been Rent Act tenants ‘immediately before the tenancy was granted’, but ‘Sub-paragraph (b) of section 34(1) is clearly designed to shield the tenant who had security of tenure under the 1977 Act and who has been persuaded by his landlord to enter into a new tenancy after January 15, 1989 so as to prevent him from losing the 1977 Act protection. It is designed to defeat an argument that the tenant has lost his 1977 Act protection because he has voluntarily surrendered the tenancy entered into prior to January 15, 1989 which attracted the provisions of the 1977 Act in exchange for a new tenancy which, being post January 15, 1989, did not qualify for that security. Section 34(1)(b) has in my opinion no application in a case such as the present where the landlord has gone to the court and obtained an order for possession.’
. . And ‘I can see no reason why section 34(1)(b) ought to be read subject to the suggested limitation; a view apparently shared by the judge in the case of Goringe v Twinsactra Ltd decided on April 20 1994, reported in the Legal Action Group Bulletin for June 1994 at 11.’

Judges:

Roche LJ Sir Brian Neill

Citations:

Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 23-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 197, (1998) 30 HLR 1099

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretarial and Nominee Co Ltd v Thomas and others CA 29-Jul-2005
The court was asked about transitional arrangements for Rent Act tenants after the 1988 Act: ‘If A, a Rent Act tenant, takes a new tenancy agreement after the commencement of the 1988 Act jointly with B, does B thereafter partake in the ongoing . .
See Also – Laimond Properties Limited and Christina Raeuchle CA 18-Aug-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
See Also – Laimond Properties Ltd v Raeuchle CA 24-Jan-2000
The landlord acquired the freehold of a small block of flats in 1993. The defendant had been a tenant protected under the Rent Acts since 1976. He also made use of a neighburing empty room without paying rent. His rent was nearly all paid through . .
Applied – Arogol Company Ltd v Rajah CA 21-Mar-2001
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143675

Burton v Camden London Borough Council: CA 15 Jan 1998

A deed of release executed by one joint tenant in favour of the other did not bind the landlord. Save that in a periodic tenancy the old tenant would be released on the next renewal.

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-1998, Gazette 28-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.78770

Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Aranda: CA 21 Mar 1997

The applicant and her husband surrendered their tenancy of a house in Camden and moved to Colombia, where they obtained accommodation. On arrival in Colombia, the applicant was deserted by her husband. With no prospect of employment in Colombia, and no entitlement to social security benefits, she returned to Camden and applied for housing. Camden now appealed against decision that the applicant was not intentionally homeless.
Held: The causal connection between her deliberately giving up the accommodation in Camden, and her homelessness after leaving the accommodation in Colombia, had been broken by her husband’s desertion.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1309, (1997) 30 HLR 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141705

Northampton Borough Council v Lovatt and Lovatt: CA 3 Jan 1997

Misbehaviour of a tenant in the immediate neighbourhood of tenanted property could be a nuisance in respect to that tenancy.

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1997, Gazette 11-Mar-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 821

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch 2 Ground 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.84352

Cavendish Square Investments Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Moule: Admn 31 Jan 2012

Appeal against a decision of the Rent Assessment Committee of the London Rent Assessment Panel whereby the Rent Assessment Committee decided that the fair rent which Mr Moule, the respondent to this appeal decided that the fair rent is andpound;5654.50 per annum.

Judges:

Timothy Dutton QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1839 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463078

Berryman v Hounslow London Borough Council: CA 20 Nov 1996

No damages were to be awarded for a tenant’s injury suffered whilst climbing the stairs when the lift had not been repaired.

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Housing, Personal Injury

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.78369

Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Wingrove; Regina v Same Ex Parte Mansoor: CA 7 Jun 1996

Accommodation provided by a local authority need not be permanent in order to satisfy the statutory requirement to assist somebody in need of assistance for homelessness. The full duty might be discharged by securing the offer of an assured shorthold tenancy of suitable premises

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-1996, [1997] QB 953

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .

Cited by:

Cited – Griffiths v St Helens Council CA 7-Mar-2006
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.88254

The Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ubah: CA 21 Mar 1996

The respondent mortgagee had obtained an order for possession against the mortgagor freeholder, referred to in the judgment as ‘the Chief’, who had, prior to the mortgage, granted a tenancy to the appellant.
Held: The landlord’s retention of a right to use the kitchen made the tenancy a restricted tenancy even though no use was possible by the landlord under the contract in that situation.
CS Millett LJ: ‘The appellant’s evidence was that in 1987, that is before the mortgage was granted to the respondents, the appellant arranged for work to be carried out on the flat. The Chief later agreed with him that he would pay andpound;13,873 towards the cost of those repairs and in the words of the appellant ‘the Chief told me to set my rent against what he owed me’. That agreement was effective between the parties, but it did not confirm upon the appellant an interest in land capable of binding successors in title to the Chief whether with or without notice of the arrangements unless the right the right of deduction which was given to the appellant fell within one of the two established rights of deduction which are capable of binding successors in title’. And
‘As against the Chief in my opinion the appellant may well be entitled to deduct the amount which the Chief owes him from payments of rent which are due to the Chief. But the money judgment below is entirely in respect of rent to due the respondents after the date that they had notified the appellant that they had taken possession. The appellant has no right of set-off capable of binding successors in title such as the respondents. It is, of course, settled law that an interest which is not capable of binding successors in title cannot be an over-riding interest within section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996, [1996] 73 P and CR at 500

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
Cited – Lee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89837

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia: CA 23 Feb 1996

A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were overstaying.

Citations:

Independent 23-Feb-1996, Gazette 20-Mar-1996, Times 27-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 616

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 63 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia QBD 11-Oct-1995
An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia QBD 11-Oct-1995
An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant. . .
Cited – London Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.88300

Regina v Northavon District Council Ex Parte Palmer: CA 1 Aug 1995

A Local Authority’s failure to operate its Housing Act duties correctly gave no right to a private law claim for damages

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-1995, Independent 09-Aug-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.87463

Regina v Poole Borough Council Ex Parte Cooper: QBD 13 Oct 1994

Statutory housing enquiries may not be held as confidential to the authority. The information is obtained by the Local Authority in order to be put to the homeless applicant, and no privilege can be attached or given.

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1994, Independent 13-Oct-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.87555

Marath and Another v MacGillivray: CA 5 Feb 1996

A landlord’s notice to the effect that ‘3 month’s rent due’ was a sufficiently precise demand to allow the tenant to know the nature of his default, and the notice was valid. the relevant notice said: ‘Signed: RM If signed by agent, name and address of agent: Acting Agent RM’ with the address. This notice had been served as an exhibit to an affidavit by the agent.
Held: A notice served for the purposes of section 20 of the 1988 Act (notwithstanding that it was not a valid notice for the purposes of section 20 itself, because it was served after rather than before the ‘assured tenancy’ was entered into) provided sufficient notice for the purposes of section 48(1).
Sir Iain Glidewell said: ‘I see the strength in the argument that if it be proved that the landlord, or his solicitors acting on his behalf, had quite deliberately ensured that payment which otherwise would have come from a housing authority was delayed until after the date of the hearing, in order to enable the landlord to prove that more than three months’ rent was in fact unpaid, a court would be slow to base a judgment upon more than three months’ rent being unpaid. Precisely how it would go about reflecting that unwillingness to give judgment when it is required by statute to do so, I have not considered.’

Judges:

Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1996, [1996] 28 HLR 484

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8 20, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .

Cited by:

Cited – Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 13-May-1999
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent.
Held: A notice which was . .
Cited – Leeds v London Borough of Islington Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83393

Harrow London Borough Council v Johnstone: CA 31 Mar 1995

A local authority was denied a possession order against a Husband when the Wife who had been excluded from the property by a court order surrendered the tenancy.

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – London Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – London Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81268

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society Plc v Norgan: CA 5 Dec 1995

The starting point for assessing the period of time over which a court should order the repayment of arrears under a mortgage, when considering the need for a possession order, is the remaining balance of mortgage term.

Judges:

Evans, Waite LJJ, Sir John May

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jan-1996, Independent 14-Dec-1995, Times 08-Dec-1995, [1995] EWCA Civ 11, [1996] 1 WLR 343, [1996] 1 All ER 449, (1996) 28 HLR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1970 30, Administration of Justice Act 1973 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing, Land

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79006

Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts: CA 1993

A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a correct date. The tenancy was therefore not an assured shorthold tenancy, and the section 20 notice was ineffective to terminate the tenancy. ‘There is a statutory pre-condition that a notice should have been served in the prescribed form. The prescribed form requires for completion a specification of the date on which the tenancy in respect of which a notice is served both commences and ends. The narrow issue is whether a notice which gives a wrong date (here a termination) is ‘substantially to the same effect’ as one which gives the correct date. Authority and an evident error apart, I find it difficult to say that it was. By ‘evident error’ I mean an error which would have been evident to a person with the ordinary qualities of the addressee. I would exclude a quality of obtuseness as being extraordinary. The writing of ‘1793’ for ‘1993’ would be an evident error. The writing in this case of ‘May’ rather than ‘November’ in my judgment would be a perplexity rather than an evident error to an ordinary recipient proposing and taking a tenancy of [and then the name of the property is given] …’ and ‘A notice with an incorrect date is not substantially to the same effect as a notice with the correct date, and in this case the mistake was not obvious.’ and ‘I wish to give no encouragement to arguments which are based on what were described to us as ‘slips of the pen’ and which I have exemplified as ‘1793’ for ‘1993’. However, an insistence on accuracy seems to me likely to simplify the task of the County Court and more importantly to enable tenants to know with certainty of their status.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 2 EGLR 51, [1993] 25 HLR 421

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
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 . .
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Clickex Ltd v McCann CA 26-May-1999
A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.187707

Sheffield City Council v Jepson: CA 1 Mar 1993

The tenant was subject to an agreement not to keep a dog in her flat. The judge agreed that the term was appropriate, and that the breach of the term was both open persistent and determined. Under those circumstances it was not reasonable for him to refuse an order for possession.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993, (1993) 25 HLR 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The respondent was a mutual housing co-operative, and the claimant its tenant. The tenant kept a dog in the premises without the consent of the other tenants in breach of the terms of the lease. A notice to quit was served on him. His tenancy was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89206

Taylor v Newham London Borough Council: CA 1 Mar 1993

When a tenant sought an order enforcing his right to buy his house, the judge had no discretion to refuse the order on the grounds of hardship. Once the conditions were satisfied, the tenant’s rights were absolute.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 138(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89748

Regina v Northavon District Council, ex parte Smith: CA 4 Aug 1993

A local Authority has a duty to act upon a housing request for children even though the family were intentionally homeless.

Citations:

Independent 18-Aug-1993, Times 04-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Northavon District Council ex parte Smith HL 18-Jul-1994
Local Authority is under no obligation to provide permanent housing for a family with children save as provided under the Act. The Children Act not to be used as a way around homelessness decisions and rules. A Social Services request to house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87474

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua: CA 31 Mar 1994

Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. She refused a permanent place offered to her and was evicted. She applied to Brent who concluded that her refusal of accommodation made her intentionally homeless. Brent now appealed a finding against them.
Held: It was relevant when looking at the provision of public sector housing to the homeless, that an authority had previously accepted her as unintentionally homeless. It could not be assumed she would reject any offer made. Nevertheless Brent had to make its own assessment. It had asked itself the correct questions, not only whether she had acted reasonably in failing to accept an offer, but also whether the temporary accommodation was suitable. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Dillon, Leggatt, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Independent 31-Mar-1994, Times 26-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86190

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte MacWan: CA 6 Apr 1994

A Local Authority may delay the grant of permanent accommodation to await the expiry of a short term lease. Leggatt LJ said that accommodation under section 65(2) ‘does have to be secured without limit of time and so . . be indefinite.’ Dillon LJ said that ‘the accommodation to satisfy the council’s duty must . . be ‘permanent’ in the sense in which that term is used in the cases.’
Final permanent housing may be properly achieved after several temporary accommodations.

Judges:

Leggatt, Dillon LJJ

Citations:

Independent 15-Apr-1994, Times 06-Apr-1994, (1994) 26 HLR 528

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86193

City of Bradford Metropolitan Council v McMahon and McMahon: CA 21 Apr 1993

The right to buy a council house is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental, and that right disappears on the death of the tenant because there was no secure tenancy left upon which to base the right: ‘It is a creature of statute and is sui generis; if it is helpful to equate it to some more general right recognised by the courts I would prefer to describe it as analogous to a personal equity.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

Independent 21-Apr-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 52, (1993) 25 HLR 534

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 121 ff

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zionmor v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Islington CA 10-Oct-1997
The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Land

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79145

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

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.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88593

Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex Parte Sadiq: QBD 27 Jul 2000

A housing authority which had made a decision that it had a duty to provide accommodation, could not revisit that decision once it became aware of a change of circumstances. At the time of the decision the applicant had his son living with him. After the decision but before being housed, the child was ordered to return to his mother. The applicant need not proceed by a review of the authority’s second decision.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000, Gazette 20-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.85142

Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another: ChD 30 Nov 2000

An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Dec-2000, Times 30-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.78573

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney: Admn 15 Feb 2012

Application for judicial review brought by Mrs Anne McDonagh, who challenges the policy of the defendant, the London Borough of Hackney (‘Hackney’) in respect of the allocation of pitches on sites authorised and designated for use by the travelling community.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 373 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452683

Dyson v Kerrier District Council: CA 1980

Miss Dyson gave up her flat in Huntingdon and went to live in Cornwall. But the only accommodation which she had arranged for herself was a three month winter let of a cottage in Helston. She knew that the tenancy was not protected and that she would have to leave. When she was finally evicted, she applied to the local council for accommodation on the ground that she was now homeless. The council said that she was intentionally homeless because she had given up the Huntingdon flat knowing that after the expiry of the winter let she would have nowhere to live. She argued that was concerned only with the accommodation one had been occupying at the time when one became homeless. This was the cottage in Cornwall and it was not reasonable to expect her to continue to occupy that accommodation because the court had ordered her to leave it.
Held: Such a construction would enable people to jump the housing queues by making themselves intentionally homeless at one remove. They would only have to move into temporary accommodation and wait until evicted. The Court therefore held that one was not confined to asking whether it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy the cottage in Cornwall. If it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy the flat in Huntingdon and there was a causal link between deliberately leaving that flat and her subsequent homelessness in Cornwall, then she was intentionally homeless.

Judges:

Brightman LJ

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 1205, [1980] 3 All ER 313

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.443223

Haq v Eastbourne Borough Council: UTLC 10 Oct 2011

COMPENSATION – prohibition order – Housing Health and Safety Rating System Regulations – category 1 hazard – flat – crowding and space – section s584A Housing Act 1985 – S.5 Land Compensation Act 1961 – Rule 4 – whether use of flat (a) contrary to law (b) detrimental to health of the occupants – nil compensation awarded

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 365 (LC), [2012] JPL 187, [2012] RVR 18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445692

Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council: HL 6 Jul 1995

Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such offer. Having rejected it as unsuitable, she was given notice to quit the temporary accomodation. She then applied to Brent, but they decided that she was now intentionally homeless.
Held: Lord Goff said: ”accommodation’ in section 58(1) and section 60(1) means a place which can fairly be described as accommodation (Puhlhofer) and which it would be reasonable, having regard to the general housing conditions in the local housing authority’s district, for the person in question to continue to occupy (section 58(2A) and (2B)). There is no additional requirement that it should be settled or permanent.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

[1995] UKHL 23, [1995] 3 All ER 493, [1996] 1 AC 55, [1995] 3 WLR 215, 93 LGR 581

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 62(1) 65(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v City of Westminster, Ex parte Chambers 1982
It was not possible for a local authority to say for homelessness purposes that a tenant had ceased to occupy property which she had never moved into. . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Regina v Waveney City Council, ex parte Bowers CA 25-May-1982
The applicant was an alcoholic and had in 1980 been hit by a motor vehicle and suffered a severe head injury. He sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to house him.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘The question we have to consider . .
Cited – Dyson v Kerrier District Council CA 1980
Miss Dyson gave up her flat in Huntingdon and went to live in Cornwall. But the only accommodation which she had arranged for herself was a three month winter let of a cottage in Helston. She knew that the tenancy was not protected and that she . .
Cited – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .
Cited – Regina v East Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Hunt 1985
The applicant and her child had been accepted to be in emergency housing need, and had been given temporary bedsit accomodation in a facility they owned and managed. She had a sink, cooker and fridge, and shared bathroom and toilet facilities and a . .
At First Instance – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua CA 31-Mar-1994
Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. . .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte MacWan CA 6-Apr-1994
A Local Authority may delay the grant of permanent accommodation to await the expiry of a short term lease. Leggatt LJ said that accommodation under section 65(2) ‘does have to be secured without limit of time and so . . be indefinite.’ Dillon LJ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society CA 4-Dec-2007
The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443217

Akhtar v Birmingham City Council: CA 12 Apr 2011

Appeal from an order in the County Court dismissing the appeal of the Appellant from a review decision of Birmingham City Council, pursuant to sections 202 and 203 of the Act, that the Respondent had discharged its duty to secure accommodation for the Appellant under section 193(2) of the Act. The reason given in the review decision letter was that the Respondent had discharged its duty by an offer to the Appellant which offer was refused by the Appellant on the ground that it was unsuitable.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 383, [2011] HLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442541

Mew and Another v Tristmire Ltd: CA 28 Jul 2011

The claimants occupied houseboats constructed from second world war landing craft supported on non-floating platforms on land let to the respondents. They held under oral tenancies which had been terminated by the respondents before possession was sought. The appellants appealed against orders finding that they were not assured tenants within the 1988 Act on the basis that the barges were not dwelling-houses.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Arden, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 912

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Pier and Harbour Order (Bembridge Harbour) Confirmation Act 1963, Housing Act 1988 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442255

Regina (Painter) v Carmarthenshire County Council Housing Benefit Review Board; Regina (Murphy) v Westminster City Council and Others: QBD 16 May 2001

In each case a lodger had formed a relationship with his landlady, and had had moved to take up occupation with her, but after the relationship came to an end reverted to his status as lodger, and moved back to his for accommodation within the house. The rules provide that Housing Benefit is not payable where the applicant would be paying his rent to a former partner and the claim related to part of property he had formerly occupied whilst living in that relationship with that partner. The regulations were clear and effective to prevent the claims for housing benefit in this situation.

Citations:

Times 16-May-2001

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 7(1) (c) (I)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.85998

Orlic v Croatia: ECHR 21 Jun 2011

Citations:

48833/07, [2011] ECHR 974, [2011] HLR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.441130

Between Bristol City Council v Aldford Two Llp: UTLC 30 Mar 2011

UTLC HOUSING – enforcement action – category 1 hazard – RPT quashing improvement notice – whether lawful to do so – whether certain factors wrongly taken into account – hazard awareness notice as alternative – held this was the appropriate enforcement action – appeal dismissed – Housing Act 2004 ss 5, 28

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 130 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440776

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead v Hemans: CA 2 Mar 2011

The Council appealed against judgment in favour of the applicants who had challenged the Council’s review of their application for assistance as homeless people.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt, Toulson, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 374

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2006 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431894

Makisi v Birmingham City Council: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court considered questions arising under the review procedure applicable under homelessness provisions.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431750

Kay And Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Sep 2010

(Fourth Section) After carefully considering the various views expressed in the House of Lords in Kay v Lambeth [2006] 2 AC 465 and Doherty v Birmingham [2009] 1 AC 367, and the relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal, the EurCtHR stated, at paras 65-68, that the principles laid down in Connors v UK (2005) 40 EHRR 9 and McCann v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40 applied. In so far as the law had subsequently been developed in Doherty v Birmingham [2009] 1 AC 367, this development could not be relied on in this case.
‘The Court welcomes the increasing tendency of the domestic courts to develop and expand conventional judicial review grounds in the light of article 8. A number of their Lordships in Doherty alluded to the possibility for challenges on conventional judicial review grounds in cases such as the applicants’ to encompass more than just traditional Wednesbury grounds (see Lord Hope at para 55; Lord Scott at paras 70 and 84 to 85; and Lord Mance at paras 133 to 135 of the House of Lords judgment). However, notwithstanding these developments, the Court considers that at the time that the applicants’ cases were considered by the domestic courts, there was an important distinction between the majority and minority approaches in the House of Lords, as demonstrated by the opinions in Kay itself. In McCann, the Court agreed with the minority approach [in Kay v Lambeth [2006] 2 AC 465] although it noted that, in the great majority of cases, an order for possession could continue to be made in summary proceedings and that it would be only in very exceptional cases that an applicant would succeed in raising an arguable case which would require a court to examine the issue.’ and
‘In conclusion, the Kay applicants’ challenge to the decision to strike out their article 8 defences failed because it was not possible at that time to challenge the decision of a local authority to seek a possession order on the basis of the alleged disproportionality of that decision in light of personal circumstances. Accordingly, for the reasons given in McCann, the Court concludes that the decision by the County Court to strike out the applicant’s article 8 defences meant that the procedural safeguards required by article 8 for the assessment of the proportionality of the interference were not observed. As a result, the applicants were dispossessed of their homes without any possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal. It follows that there has been a violation of article 8 of the Convention in the instant case.’

Citations:

[2010] ECHR 1322, 37341/06

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Citing:

See Also – Kay And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Oct-2008
. .
Applied – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Applied – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Sep-2008
The local authority had determined Mr McCann’s right to remain in his home by obtaining from his wife a notice to quit, the effect of which (surrendering their joint tenancy) upon him she did not understand. He said that this interfered with his . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426994

Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 26 Jan 1971

The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order was not ‘reasonably necessary’ under section 43(2) of the 1957 Act, when there was no material on which he could properly reach a different conclusion.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I know that on matters of planning policy the Minister can overrule the Inspector, and need not send it back to him, as happened in Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government. But the question of what is ‘reasonably necessary’ is not planning policy. It is an inference of fact on which the Minister should not overrule the Inspector’s recommendation unless there is material sufficient for the purpose. There was none here.’
Sachs LJ said that whereas the Inspector ‘may well be looked on as an expert for the purpose of forming an opinion of fact, the Minister is in a different position . . no Minister can personally be an expert on all matters of professional opinion with which his officers deal with from day to day.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs LJ, Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 All ER 1049, (1971) 1 WLR 433, [1971] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 43(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 1-Jul-2002
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Administrative, Housing

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.181252

Brent London Borough Council v Knightley and Another: CA 26 Feb 1997

The daughter of a deceased tenant claimed succession to her mother’s interest in a tenancy which was subject to a possession order.
Held: There can be no succession to a tolerated trespasser under a former secure tenancy.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Aldous LJ, sChiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 917, (1997) 29 HLR 857

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – White v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Overruled – Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.78571

H, Regina v: CACD 13 Feb 2008

The judge had ruled that the evidence intended to be offered could not create offences within the 1977 Act. Verdicts of not guilty were entered. The decision was a terminating ruling. The prosecutor failed to give the appropriate section 58 undertaking on appealing.
Held: Attending to the purpose of the 2003 Act, the prosecutor’s mistake was recitified and the appeal could continue.
As to the substantial appeal, the judge had found that the tenancy or licence was an excluded one. The resident landlord having terminated the licence, the occupiers became trespassers outside the protection of the 1977 Act. However the judge had erred since the occupiers had been given a minimum term of six months which the landlord’s notice did not abridge. It could be brought to an end only for a breach of its terms.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P, David J, David Clarke J

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 483

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(3A)(a), Criminal Justice Act 2003 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406147

Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 10 May 2017

The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental difficulties which afflicted her following that incarceration. She now appealed from rejection of that claim by the County Court and the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. Until a clear and direct judgment was available from the ECHR, the court was to follow the decision in Ali.
The appellant’s factual account had inconsistencies and the assessing officer’s factual conclusions were understandable, and disclosed no error of law.
‘The scope and limits of the concept of a ‘civil right’, as applied to entitlements in the field of public welfare, raise important issues as to the interpretation of article 6, on which the views of the Chamber are unlikely to be the last word. In my view, this is a case in which, without disrespect to the Chamber, we should not regard its decision as a sufficient reason to depart from the fully considered and unanimous conclusion of the court in Ali. It is appropriate that we should await a full consideration by a Grand Chamber before considering whether (and if so how) to modify our own position.’
The Court repeated its request for restraint in the extent and number of authorities quoted to it.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 36, [2017] 3 All ER 1065, [2017] AC 624, [2017] HLR 28, [2017] WLR(D) 323, [2017] 2 WLR 1417, UKSC 2015/0219

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 140217 am Video, SC 140217 pm Video, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .
Appeal from – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 8-Jul-2015
The claimant sought housing under the homelessness provisions. She had refused a final offer accommodation n the grounds that it brought back memories of her prison cell in Iran, and which would exacerbate the post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety . .
Cited – Slater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
Cited – Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond Upon Thames HL 4-Feb-2009
The father had been awarded shared residence for three children. He asked the local authority to provide appropriate housing.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded.
‘When any family court decides with whom the children of separated . .
Cited – El-Dinnaoui v Westminster City Council CA 20-Mar-2013
The appellant and his family sought rehousing. The appellant’s wife had a medically-confirmed history of anxiety due to fear of heights. They were offered a flat on the 16th floor. She became distressed on leaving after the inspection and collapsed . .
Cited – Fazia Ali v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Oct-2015
The Court considered the duties imposed on housing authorities under Part VII of the 1996 Act.
Held: Article 6.1 did apply, but in any event the procedure applied under the Act conformed to its requirements. . .
Cited – Feldbrugge v The Netherlands ECHR 29-May-1986
The court was asked whether the applicant’s entitlement to a statutory sickness allowance, which was a contributory scheme but for which she had not registered due to illness, was a civil right within the meaning of article 6.
Held: The . .
Cited – Salesi v Italy ECHR 26-Feb-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Mennitto v Italy ECHR 5-Oct-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Tsfayo v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Nov-2006
The applicant challenged the prodecures for deciding her appeal against the council’s refusal to pay backdated housing benefits. She complained that the availability of judicial review of the decision was not adequate.
Held: The system did not . .
Cited – Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland ECHR 24-Jun-1993
The court considered a contributory invalidity scheme: ‘today the general rule is that Article 6(1) does apply in the field of social insurance, including even welfare assistance . . State intervention is not sufficient to establish that Article . .
Cited – Loiseau v France ECHR 28-Sep-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1.
The court referred to ‘a ‘private right’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law’ and to ‘an individual right . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Adan CA 14-Dec-2001
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 . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave.
Held: The complaint was . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.582172

Slater v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 12 Apr 2006

The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review had two stages. Was the accommodation offered suitable, and, secondly, was the applicant’s rejection of the offer reasonable. The authority’s appeal was rejected.
Ward LJ described the decision-maker’s task: ‘In judging whether it was unreasonable to refuse such an offer, the decision-maker must have regard to all the personal characteristics of the applicant, her needs, her hopes and her fears and then taking account of those individual aspects, the subjective factors, ask whether it is reasonable, an objective test, for the applicant to accept. The test is whether a right-thinking local housing authority would conclude that it was reasonable that this applicant should have accepted the offer of this accommodation.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Sir Martin Nourse, The Right Honourable Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 394, Times 03-May-2006, [2006] HLR 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 193

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Deugi CA 7-Mar-2006
The court considered whether a successful appeal against a local authority’s decision on the need for emergency housing should lead to the case being remitted to them for a further review. May LJ defined the question to be: ‘whether there was any . .
Cited – The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Rahanara Begum CA 11-Feb-2005
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person. Temporary accommodation was provided, and an offer of permanent accommodation was made but rejected. The council then sought possession of the temporary accommodation. The applicant responded that . .
Cited – Wilson-Webb v The Kensington and Chelsea RLBC 16-Jun-1998
(County Court) . .
Cited – Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow CA 25-Jun-1999
The appellants refused the authority’s offer of accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act, saying it was not suitable. After the authority had informed them that if they did not accept the offer, the authority’s duty to house them would cease, . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal CA 24-Feb-2004
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 . .
Cited – Crawley Borough Council v Bliss CA 22-Feb-2000
A local authority refused the applicants application for emergency housing as a homeless person. On the review of that decision the authority concluded that she did have priority need, but then decided that the application should be refused because . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham CA 2-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons.
Held: The tenant’s appeal . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.241955

Odhams Walk Residents’ Management Ltd v Westminster City Council: Admn 13 Jul 2009

Challenge by way of judicial review to the policy of the Westminster City Council that only studio-sized accommodation will be made available in future to housing management organisations like the claimant to offer to their staff.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1712 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Planning, Housing

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361464

London District Properties Management Ltd and Others v Goolamy and Another: Admn 16 Jun 2009

The court was asked: ‘Does section 13(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 have the effect of enabling a landlord to seek to increase the rent payable under a statutory periodic tenancy beyond the levels contemplated in a rent review clause in the assured tenancy that preceded it, even though that clause purports to govern the position during the currency of both the assured tenancy and any subsequent statutory periodic tenancy?’

Judges:

Burnett J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1367 (Admin), [2009] NPC 77, [2009] 2 P and CR DG17, [2010] 1 P and CR 1, [2009] L and TR 25, [2010] 1 WLR 307, [2009] 38 EG 110

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346924

Regina v Wandsworth Borough Council Ex Parte Crooks (And Six Other Applications): QBD 30 Mar 1995

Local Authority may re-house in private sector on an assured shorthold tenancy which was expected to be renewed under normal circumstances.

Citations:

Independent 30-Mar-1995, Times 12-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.88242

Ahmed, Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another: Admn 2 Oct 2008

The claimant, a failed asylum seeker, sought judicial review of the refusal to him of accomodation

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2282 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 4, Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Housing

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276536

Dumbuya, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham: Admn 16 Jul 2008

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1852 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Boxall v Waltham Forest Borough Council 2001
The fact that the claimants were legally aided was immaterial when deciding what, if any, costs order to make between the parties in a case where they were successful and he declined to order that each side should bear its own costs. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272810

Harouki v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 17 Oct 2007

The applicant sought housing as a homeles person. Her present accommodation for herself, her husband and five children was so overcrowded that continued occupation was a criminal offence. She appealed a finding that it was reasonable to continue living there notwithstanding the continuing commission of the offence.
Held: The appeal failed. The statutory guidance correctly expressed the law, and however surprising it might be, the ‘guidance explicitly contemplates that statutory overcrowding may not by itself be sufficient to determine reasonableness. ‘ The officer had been free to take account of the borough’s overall overcrowding, and had not acted illegally or irrationally.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Thomas LJ, Richards LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1000

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 235

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council, ex parte Ali 1983
McCullough J considered whether it was reasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live in overcrowded accomodation: ‘That anyone should regard as reasonable that a family of that size should live in one room 10 ft x 12 ft in size, or . .
Cited – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Cited – Elrify v City of Westminster Council CA 23-Mar-2007
The court considered what was to happen when a person in overcrowded accommodation sought rehousing: ‘Part 10 of the 1985 Act concerns overcrowding. Its pivotal provision is section 327 which provides that, subject to some exceptions, the occupier . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Jibril Admn 21-Jan-1997
The court considered what background could be allowed for when, in a homelessness application, the applicant said that it would be unreasonable to expect him to continue to occupy his present dwelling.
Held: ‘in judging what is suitable, the . .
Cited – Griffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark Admn 29-Oct-2004
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 . .
Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
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 . .
Cited – Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 1-Nov-1999
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259901

Bernard, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 25 Oct 2002

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 andpound;10,000 damages.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin), [2003] HRLR 111, [2003] LGR 423

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 8, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 6-Jul-2011
The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Damages, Housing

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258663