Hopwood v Cannock Chase District Council: CA 1975

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 373

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcAuley v Bristol City Council CA 25-Jun-1991
The Council appealed against a finding of liability to the plaintiff tenant who slipped and fell in the back garden of the tenanted house. . .
ApprovedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622318

Brown v Liverpool Corpn: CA 1969

The premises at issue consisted of a terraced house to which access was obtained from the street through a gate, down some steps and along a two metre path which led to the front door of the house.
Held: The steps were part of the exterior of the dwelling-house for the purpose of section 32(1)(a) of the 1961 Act.
Danckwerts LJ said that, as the steps were ‘the means of access’ to the dwelling-house in question, they were ‘plainly part of the building’.
Salmon LJ, agreeing, thought the case was not ‘by any means free from difficulty, or, indeed, from doubt’ and emphasised that his decision was based ‘on the particular facts of this case’ and not on ‘any general principle of law’.
Sachs LJ said that the case had ’caused [him] no little difficulty’, that he had ‘considerable hesitation’ and that the argument was ‘a very close run thing’; while he accepted that the covenant did not apply to ‘those parts of the demise that are not part of the building itself’, he considered that the issue was ‘one of degree and fact’, and that the judge had been ‘entitled’ to conclude that the steps were within the covenant.

Judges:

Danckwerts LJ, Salmon LJ, Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1969] 3 All ER 1345

Statutes:

Housing Act 1961 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decidedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622268

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc: QBD 8 Oct 1996

Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits such as income support. The Act should be read so as to disallow a refusal by local authorities to house destitute asylum seekers. Local Authority has residual duty to support destitute asylum applicants who had been refused benefits.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Nov-1996, Times 10-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 90, (1997) 1 CCLR 85, (1997) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21 22

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedRegina v Greater Manchester Council ex parte Worch 1988
The court considered to what extent it could look to the form of an Act before it was amended in order to assist it in construing the Act as amended: ‘The original section 21(a) of the [Coroners (Amendment) Act] 1926 is no longer law, since it has . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 23-Oct-2003
A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was . .
Appeal fromRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedVictor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86806

Regina v London Rent Assessment Panel, Ex Parte Cadogan Estates Ltd: Admn 4 Jun 1997

If the proper rent is higher than the statutory maximum, then the rent should be so set and the assured tenancy status lost. The Committee was not prohibited from assessing the rent of the assured tenancy arising on termination of the long tenancy in excess of andpound;25,000.

Judges:

Kay J

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 515, (1998) 30 HLR 487, [1997] 3 WLR 833, [1997] 2 EGLR 134, [1998] QB 398, [1997] 34 EG 88, (1998) 76 P and CR 410

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 14

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of ‘once an assured tenancy, always an assured . .
CitedHughes v Borodex Ltd Admn 25-Mar-2009
The tenant under a long lease appealed against a rent assessment which increased the amount payable to a level where she lost her security of tenure. She said that 17 year old improvements she had made should not have been taken into account.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87211

Regina v Ealing London Borough Council Ex Parte Nicola Surdonja: Admn 20 Oct 1998

The homeless applicant family were housed in two hostels approximately a mile apart.
Held: A housing authority’s duty to provide interim accommodation pending homelessness decision extended to the provision of suitable accommodation. There was no justification for any other reading of the section. Housing which split up a family was not suitable.
Scott Baker J said: ‘In my judgment the obligation is not discharged by providing split accommodation in separate dwellings. It is the policy of the law that families should be kept together; they should be able to live together as a unit. I can well see that the obligation could be discharged by, for example, separate rooms in the same hotel, but not I think in two entirely separate hostels up to a mile apart.’

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

Times 30-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 988, [1999] 1 ALL ER 566

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188

Cited by:

Appeal fromEaling London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .
CitedSharif v The London Borough of Camden SC 20-Feb-2013
The council appealed against a decision that having found Ms Sharif to be homeless, they had a duty also to house her sick father and sister as family members in one accomodation unit.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded (Lord Kerr . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86604

O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another: CA 17 Apr 2001

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector refused the sale.
Held: The applicant successfully appealed. Having examined in detail the operation of the two inconsistent statutes the majority of the Court of Appeal held that there had been an implied repeal. On the basis that the requirements of the Right to Buy scheme were inconsistent with an impliedly repealed the earlier Act. The later provisions were so inconsistent with an repugnant to the earlier Act that the two could not stand together.
Buxton LJ, dissenting said: ‘The court will not lightly find a case of implied repeal, and the test for it is a high one.’
Laws LJ with whom Thorpe LJ agreed said that the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation must be ‘inescapable’ and that the construction of the later statute must be shown to be the only rational interpretation that is available.

Judges:

Thorpe, Buxton, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 499, [2001] NPC 71, [2002] HLR 30, [2001] 16 EGCS 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne QBD 8-Jun-2000
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
CitedSnelling and Another v Burstow Parish Council ChD 24-Jan-2013
The parties disputed the application and interpretation of ancient statues relating to allotments. The land had been appropriated to allotments under the 1945 Act. The Council had argued that it had a power of sale under the 1908 Act subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85990

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 with accommodation in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1985 Act was once again made homeless or threatened with homelessness (for example, because the Council or other landlord had terminated his right of occupation), he might apply again, and the Council would be required once again to make enquiries under section 62(1). Suitability is primarily a matter of space and arrangement though no doubt other matters may also be material. It is important when considering an authority’s duty under the two parts of the Act not to confuse them.
Lord Hoffmann reviewed the case law: ‘The consequence of the decision in Ex parte Puhlhofer was that a person accommodated in conditions so intolerable that it would not be reasonable for him to continue to occupy that accommodation was not homeless although, if he actually left, he would not thereby become intentionally homeless. This produced the inconvenient result that persons living in such conditions had to put themselves on the street before they could activate the local authority’s duty to provide them with accommodation. To remedy this difficulty, the 1986 amendments (by sections 14(1) and (2)) again introduced a definition of ‘accommodation’ in section 58(2A) of the Act of 1985: ‘A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’ Guidance on the quality of accommodation which a local housing authority is entitled to treat as reasonable for a person to continue to occupy is provided by section 58(2B) (as added by the Act of 1986):
‘Regard may be had, in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district of the local housing authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation.’
It follows that a local authority is entitled to regard a person as having accommodation (and therefore as not being homeless) if he has accommodation which, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (2B), it can reasonably consider that it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’
Lord Hoffmann also said: ‘there is nothing in the Act to say that a local authority cannot take the view that a person can reasonably be expected to continue to occupy accommodation which is temporary. . the extent to which the accommodation is physically suitable, so that it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy it, must be related to the time for which he has been there and is expected to stay. A local housing authority could take the view that a family like the Puhlhofers, put into a single cramped and squalid bedroom, can be expected to make do for a temporary period. On the other hand, there will come a time at which it is no longer reasonable to expect them to continue to occupy such accommodation. At this point they come back within the definition of homeless in section 58(1).’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-1995, Independent 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995, [1996] 1 AC 55, (1995) 27 HLR 453, [1995] 3 All ER 493, [1995] 3 WLR 215, [1995] UKHL 23, 93 LGR 581

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 58(1) 60(1) 65(2) 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina 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. . .
At first instanceRegina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .
DoubtedDin (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 by:

CitedKnight v Vale Royal Borough Council CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant challenged a decision of the authority that she had made herself intentionally homeless.She had gone to a refuge, then to stay with her mother. She had been found to be intentionally homeless. She then found a shorthold tenancy. When . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira CA 20-May-1998
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of . .
AppliedRegina 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 . .
CitedGriffiths 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 . .
CitedSlater 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 . .
CitedHarouki 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 . .
CitedManchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council CA 17-Apr-2008
The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it . .
CitedMuse v London Borough of Brent CA 19-Dec-2008
The court was asked whether the section 193 duty to provide housing was lost after the applicant had refused alternative temporary accommodation. The applicant had been granted temporary accommodation, but her family grew and it became too small. . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
CitedRavichandran 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86187

Regina v Sacupima and Others, Ex Parte Newham London Borough Council: QBD 26 Nov 1999

A local authority decide to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants outside its area in assorted seaside towns, pending a final decision on their cases. This general policy was unlawful, since the authority had failed to consider properly the individual circumstances of the individuals involved. Many were on benefits, and had for example children being educated within the borough. The effect of the policy was to make any return to the borough impossible.

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-2000, [1999] EWHC 274 (QB), [2000] COD 133, (2001) 33 HLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others CA 1-Dec-2000
Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in . .
CitedNzolameso 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85470

Haringey London Borough Council v Jowett: QBD 27 Apr 1999

Traffic noise from outside a building could not found an allegation of statutory nuisance. A landlord could liable for a nuisance he allowed to continue even though the same condition applied when he acquired his interest.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 365, [1999] 32 HLR 308

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Cited by:

CitedVella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81241

Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan: CA 31 Jan 1996

The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought issue of a warrant, and the tenant argued that a new possession was required, saying that the further agreement constituted the grant of a new tenancy or licence, and that this happened irrespective of anybody’s intentions.
Held: No new tenancy had been created, and no new possession order was required. It would be wrong to require the authority to apply to court each time a tenant under a suspended order was late in payment. The tenancy was determined when the conditions were breached. The authority might waive that breach, in which case situation continued as before. Whether the variation created a new tenancy was a question of fact. In this case the tenancy ended twice. The waivers by the authority did not determine the tenancy. Had he applied, the tenant would have been granted a postponment of the possession on the new agreement.
‘The tenancy continues until the date on which the tenant is ordered to give up possession. If the order is suspended on terms, the tenancy continues until there is a breach of those terms and then determines. The Local Authority is free to treat the tenant as a trespasser and to request the court to issue a warrant of execution. The tenant, on the other hand, is entitled to apply to the court to vary the terms of the order by postponing the date of possession. If it does so, the tenancy is reinstated and treated as if it had not determined.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 469, (1996) 72 P and CR 507

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
CitedReferral By the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission In the Cases of William Gray James Bernard O’Rourke v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Dec-2004
. .
CitedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

CitedSwindon Borough Council v Aston CA 19-Dec-2002
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession . .
CitedMarshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
AppliedBurrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
CitedRichmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
CitedKnowsley 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: . .
CitedAustin 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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81015

Cunningham v Birmingham City Council: Admn 6 May 1997

The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural problems. She said that the kitchen was, in view of his condition too small and dangerous in its layout.
Held: Whether premises are ‘prejudicial to health’ is an objective not a subjective test; there is no contrast with the test for nuisance. The magistrate had been wrong to determine the case in the way he did by relating the respondents’ duties to the particular health requirements of Robert, the son of the the appellant.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Astill J

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 440

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
CitedNational Coal Board v Thorne 2-Jan-1976
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken . .
CitedHall v The Manchester Corporation 1915
Lord Parker set out the test which to be applied when considering whether a property was fit for human habitation: ‘I desire to add that if the corporation are minded to make a new order under section 41 dealing with the houses in question, they . .
CitedMorgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79709

Coventry City Council v Finnie and Another: QBD 2 May 1996

No undertaking for damages was to be required of a Local Authority exercising a statutory duty. The grant of an injunction in favour of a local authority performing law enforcement duties did not necessarily carry with it a cross-undertaking on damages of a type that is familiar in private litigation.

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996, (1997) 29 HLR 658

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Cited by:

CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79576

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Tinn: 1988

Citations:

(1988) 20 HLR 205

Cited by:

CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566157

Regina v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Ex parte Bassett: 1983

The housing applicant had given up the tenancy of a house in Basingstoke when she and her husband decided to emigrate to Canada. They moved to Canada, but their application to stay permanently was refused, and they had to return to England, where they lived in temporary accommodation in Bramley. The marriage then broke down as a result of the husband’s behaviour, and the applicant left the Bramley accommodation and applied for accommodation as a homeless person.
Held: Taylor J, relying on Lord Fraser’s acceptance in Din of the need for a continuing causal connection, held that the applicant had not become homeless intentionally. Her homelessness was not due to her having given up the secure accommodation in Basingstoke and moved into unsettled accommodation: it was due to the break-up of her marriage.

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

(1983) 10 HLR 125

Citing:

ApprovedDin (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 by:

CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566158

Regina v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Fahia: 1996

After deliberately losing her tenancy, the authority had provided the appliant with temporary accomodation in a guest house, but after her housing benefits were halved she lost that accomodation also.
Held: The authority had a duty to house her. The change in the level of housing benefits had operated to break the chain of causation, and she was no longer voluntarily homeless.
An example of the causal connection being interrupted, other than by a period in settled accommodation, would be if the applicant’s accommodation in the guest house had been burned down; or if, in Dyson’s case, the let of the cottage had been brought prematurely to an end by the cottage being destroyed by fire. As the judge observed, Dyson’s case had been decided as it was because, when the let came to an end, the fact that Miss Dyson was thereafter homeless was caused by her initial conduct. If, on the other hand, somebody went into a property for a three month period but lost it after 14 days because the premises were burnt down, then in the judge’s view, applying the ordinary common sense test of causation, one would say that the cause of the homelessness was the fire. The judge considered Ex p Bassett to be another illustration of the same principle.

Judges:

Roger Toulson QC, DJ

Citations:

(1996) 29 HLR 94

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v London Borough of Harrow ex parte Fahia CA 7-Mar-1997
The applicant had been found to have deliberately procured her own eviction from her tenanted accommodation in Harrow. She was given temporary accommodation in a guest house, where she stayed for over a year. Her housing benefit was then reduced by . .
At First InstanceRegina v Harrow London Borough Council Ex Parte Fahia HL 16-Sep-1998
The local authority submitted first that a person making a second application for emergency housing had to demonstrate a change of circumstance which might lead to a second application being successful and second that it was for the local authority . .
CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566159

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

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedHaile 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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.443223

Mohram Ali v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 27 May 1992

A challenge to the exercise of homelessness duties by a local authority must be by way of Judicial Review. Nolan LJ: ‘It follows that in my judgment the public law duties of the council were not discharged until they had completed the process of deciding on the suitable accommodation which they were obliged to secure for the plaintiff. If this process was properly carried out as a matter of public law, then the consequential private law right of the plaintiff was simply a right to the accommodation which the council had decided to be suitable.’

Judges:

Nolan LJ

Citations:

Gazette 27-May-1992, [1993] QB 407, (1992) 24 HLR 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDesnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
CitedMohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77734

Kelly v Monklands District Council: 1986

A local authority’s housing duties may be owed to a child if that child is living independently of its parents.

Citations:

1986 SLT 169

Cited by:

CitedRoyal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Housing, Children, Local Government

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259630

Yumsak v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 2002

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

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 280 Admin, [2003] HLR 1

Cited by:

CitedCalgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
CitedNzolameso 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.234545

Morrow v Nadeem: 1981

In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was invalid. It was a form preescribed by the rules requiring the correct identification of the landlord. The court considered also the effect of the omission to inform a proposed lessee about what would happen on a reference to a rent assessment committee on the substitution of council tax for poll tax. It would be a source of confusion rather than an evident error.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1381

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25, Landlord & Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 (SI 1957/1157),

Cited by:

CitedAndrews 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, . .
CitedPearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
CitedLay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187736

Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith, ex parte P: QBD 1989

The applicants were members of six homeless families who had occupied accommodation in Northern Ireland. The council concluded that members of each household except one had been guilty of criminal and anti-social behaviour, as a result of which the IRA had threatened that they would all be killed unless they left Northern Ireland within 72 hours. The council concluded that all the applicants were homeless intentionally, primarily on the ground that they had ceased to occupy their homes in consequence of deliberate acts, namely their continued misbehaviour after warnings by or on behalf of neighbours.
Held: The council’s decision was confirmed. The question was one of causation; the section makes no mention of foreseeability but where the immediate cause of the departure (namely the IRA threat) was foreseeable, then it was easier to say that the bad behaviour was the cause of the homelessness and it was less easy to say that the homelessness was caused by a new intervening act. The court rejected the submission that it should, as a matter of public policy, refrain from making the applicants responsible for the acts of vigilantes.

Judges:

Schiemann J

Citations:

(1989) 22 HLR 21

Citing:

ApprovedDevenport v Salford City Council CA 1983
A possession order was made because of the misconduct of the tenants and their children. The council made a finding of intentional homelessness, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Held: For the purposes of the homelessness legislation, . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Hounslow ex parte R Admn 19-Feb-1997
The Applicant was 65 years old, with a history of criminal offences including serious sexual assaults on children. On release from prison, he presented himself as homeless. After his imprisonment, he had realised that he would be unable to keep up . .
CitedHaile 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181073

Regina (Khan) v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 4 Oct 2002

The applicant sought review of the authority’s decision not to offer her housing. She was subject to immigration control. She had been the victim of domestic violence and of abduction.
Held: The authority could provide assistance under either Act, unless prohibited by statute. The limitation in the 1948 statute did apply to restrict the authority’s decision under the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances the decision not to provide assistance was unreasonable, and review was granted.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 04-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Immigration, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177845

Goringe v Twinsectra Ltd: 20 Apr 1994

Section 34(1)(b) of the 1977 Act should to be read subject to a limitation that it applies that a new tenancy must be a tenancy of the same premises as the old.

Citations:

(1994) LAGB June 11

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 34(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedArogol 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.614931

Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Khatun: QBD 1 Oct 1993

An interview to assess a person’s homelessness staus was ultra vires if it was conducted unsympathetically.

Citations:

Independent 01-Oct-1993

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex Parte Khatun CA 8-Dec-1994
Homelessness interview was valid though the interviewer knew of housing shortage. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex Parte Khatun CA 8-Dec-1994
Homelessness interview was valid though the interviewer knew of housing shortage. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88205

Regina v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick and similar: HL 19 Mar 1993

No homelessness priority could be established by means of having a child applying for housing, rather than his or her parent. An application by a person suffering mental disability who would also be dependent upon others was also rejected. In each case the true application was by the parent or carer. The Act is concerned with the provision of housing, not social services’ care. A parent or carer would be given priority under the later section by virtue of that care. The authorities’ duties under Part III of the 1985 Act were not owed to dependent children.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘Dependent children are not amongst those classified as in priority need.
Dependent children depend upon their parents or those looking after them to decide where they are to live and the offer of accommodation can only sensibly be made to those in charge of them.
Such a child is in my opinion owed no duty under this Act for it is the intention of the Act that the child’s accommodation will be provided by the parents or those looking after him and it is to those people that the offer of accommodation must be made.
If a family has lost its right to priority treatment through intentional homelessness the parent cannot achieve the same result through the back door by an application in the name of a dependent child.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1993, Independent 19-Mar-1993, [1993] 2 All ER 65, [1993] 2 WLR 609, [1993] AC 509

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 59(1) 59(1)(c)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
CitedRoyal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
CitedHotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87493

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 housing benenefits, but a shortfall grew, and possession proceedings were begun, with a claim for damages for trespass in the adjoining room. The tenant resisted possession proceedings alleging a failure to repair. He now appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim and the grant of possession.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The grant of a suspension as requested by the tenant was a matter of the judge’s discretion which could be interfered with only if the decision was flawed. S103(3) did not allow the imposition of payment obligation other than those for rent. The judge had not properly considered whether the sum of andpound;10.00 offered by the tenant would be likely to succeed in discharging the arrears of andpound;511.00, but had instead considered extraneous factors for the sum claimed for trespass. The judge should also have restricted his consideration to the matters pleaded.

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott V-C, Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2000] EGI

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoLaimond 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 . .
Application for leaveLaimond Properties Limited and Christina Raeuchle CA 18-Aug-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235017

Westminster Borough Council v Basson: CA 1990

The council sought possession of the premises. The defendant had been an unlawful occupier. He said that in the course of the proceedings, the Council had made reference to a tenancy and to the payment of rent and had issued a rent book.
Held: The acts during possession proceedings were not inconsistent with the council’s assertions, and no tenancy had been created, only a licence.

Citations:

(1990) 23 HLR 225

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.231654

Wilson v Nithsdale District Council: 1992

An eighteen year old girl had been sexually assaulted, was unable to return home, had been expelled from a hostel for suspected theft and was said to be at risk of further sexual assault if not provided with suitable accommodation. She sought housing as a vulnerable person.
Held: The court pointed out the dangers of a comparative approach in extablishing vulnerability: ‘The ‘comparative’ approach to vulnerability adopted in these cases cannot in my view be pushed to its logical limit; the intention cannot be that every homeless person will be held vulnerable for special reason merely because one other such homeless person might by comparison seem less vulnerable. The comparison must in my view be with some assumed average or normal run-of-the-mill homeless person. But if there is a lesser ability to fend for oneself, against that comparison, in a housing context, so that injury or detriment would result when such an ordinary homeless person would be able to cope without harmful effects, then in my opinion vulnerability for special reason is established for the purpose of the Act, and nothing more special (far less anything odd or exceptional) is required.’

Judges:

Lord Prosser

Citations:

[1992] SLT 1131

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira CA 20-May-1998
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Scotland

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200294

Scurci Chimenti v Italy: ECHR 19 Dec 2002

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

Citations:

33227/96

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

AppliedImmobiliare Saffi v Italy ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.178682

Regina (Piggott) v Bedfordshire County Council: QBD 17 Jan 2002

The claimant sought allocation of a pitch on a caravan site for gypsies. She appealed a refusal of the pitch, which had been made solely on the basis that she had already come onto the site and was trespassing at the time of the application.
Held: The council should weigh up the needs of the claimant, of the community in general, and the needs of other potential occupants who had behaved in an orderly way. Improper behaviour by the claimant might justify a lower priority, but was not itself conclusive.

Judges:

Justice Turner

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002

Housing

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.167484

Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson: CA 25 Nov 1999

A notice to increase rent could properly be served on a tenant even though he lacked mental capacity. Service of a notice must retain its natural meaning. A notice could properly be given where the landlord was named, and his address given ‘c/o the agent’ provided that address gave sufficient opportunity to contact the landlord.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 ,13(2), Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 No 194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89688

Rogers v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 10 Nov 1999

A local authority landlord had obtained a possession order against the tenant, for arrears of rent, but allowed the tenant to continue in possession, and eventually agreed to the order for possession being revoked. At that time the tenant became a statutory tenant, and was deemed to have been so for the intervening period. The tenant then had standing to claim damages for the landlords failure to repair in that period.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 361

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
CitedKnowsley 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88847

Regina v Southwark London Borough Council Ex Parte Bediako; Regina v Westminster County Council Ex Parte Zafru: QBD 17 Mar 1997

The homeless status of the applicant is to be established and tested as the statutory investigation is completed, not just at the time the application is made.

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-1997

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part III

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88096

Jones v Waveney District Council: CA 17 Dec 1999

Where a local authority, having paid housing benefit in excess to a landlord, sought to recover that excess from him, it could not do so otherwise than in accordance with the regulations which provided for this. It was not open to the authority to deduct any overpayment from later payments, and if it did so, the landlord had the standing to reclaim the deducted amounts as a debt. Such a claim was not subject only to judicial review of the authority’s actions as part of public law.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Landlord and Tenant, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82620

Enfield London Borough Council v B (A Minor) and Another: CA 2 Sep 1999

In order to grant an injunction under the section, a person sought to be protected had to have some real nexus or connection with the residential premises involved. A connection with the area in general was insufficient. A milkman visiting residential premises might be protected, but a housing officer working in the area had no sufficient connection.

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 2259

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 152(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedNottingham City Council v Thames CA 26-Jul-2002
The local authority sought an order under the Act after its staff, working at a centre on the estate where the defendant resided had been threatened.
Held: There was no sufficient nexus between the staff and residence on the estate. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80328

Demetri v Westminster City Council: CA 12 Nov 1999

A right of appeal against a Housing authority’s decision lay only against the original decision itself after a review, and the notice of appeal was to be given with 21 days of the original review. A council in its discretion can decide to reconsider or review a review decision formerly given under s.202(1). This was an appropriate case for this council to do so where it was being represented to it that on the original review some material argument had not been considered. A reconsideration after a review was not appealable, even on a discretionary basis by the court, and the time limit would not run from such date. The time limit for appealing on a point of law to the county court began with the initial review.

Judges:

Douglas Brown J

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 772

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 202(2) 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedC v London Borough of Lewisham CA 4-Jul-2003
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79896

North Devon Homes Housing Association v Brazier: QBD 2003

The tenant was guilty of nuisance, but her misbehaviour was attributable to her psychotic state – her ‘disability’ within the 1995 Act.
Held: Though a very pertinent factor to be taken into account may be a housing authority’s obligations to other tenants on a housing estate and the interests of those other tenants, though the situation may be affected by the Act when the tenant suffers some mental impairment: ‘on the facts of the present case, the issue is one of fact: whether the breach of the tenancy terms was caused by the disability’. Since the evidence showed that the tenant ‘was unable [due to her disability] to prevent herself from behaving in [the objectionable] manner’ the 1995 Act was engaged, and the landlord had to establish sufficient justification to satisfy section 24(1)(b) of that Act if an order for possession was to be made. The 1995 Act did not bar all evictions but ‘only those which were not justified in the specific circumstances set out in section 24 and it ‘furnishes its own code for justified eviction which requires a higher threshold’, a threshold higher than that in the Housing Act 1988.

Judges:

David Steel J

Citations:

[2003] HLR 905, [2003] EWHC 574 (QB)

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988, Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedClark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .

Cited by:

CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.234717

Niholas v Secretary of State for Defence: ChD 1 Aug 2013

The claimant had been the wife of a military officer, and occupied a property licensed to him by the defendant. They divorced and he left, and she now resisted grant of possession to the defendant.
Held: The claimant failed. However, there was no disagreement between counsel that differential treatment as between Crown tenants and other tenants is capable of being discrimination on the ground of ‘other status’ within Article 14.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2945 (Ch)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human ights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromNicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Defence v Nicholas ChD 24-Aug-2015
Application to set aside an order granting the Secretary of State for Defence, the claimants in these proceedings, permission to issue a written possession. . .
CitedWatts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.594558

Rutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 27 Jan 2016

Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Tomlinson LJ, Vos LJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 29, [2016] WLR(D) 36

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Benefit Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.559354

Jackson v Pekic and O’Brien: CA 1990

The court looked to the meaning of ‘a resident landlord’ in the section. The question was whether the landlord in that case was on the 14th August 1974 occupying as her residence another dwelling house which formed part of the same premises in which the dwelling to which the tenant had been granted a furnished tenancy was situated.
Held: By reason of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the 1977 Act and Section 2(3) of the Act and Section 3(2) of the Rent Act 1968, the phrase ‘occupying a dwelling house as his residence’ had to be construed as fulfilling the same and only the same qualifications as had to be fulfilled under the earlier Rent Acts. Parliament was providing that in construing that phrase a court had to look at the earlier decisions on the meaning of ‘retaining dwelling house as his residence’. Ralph Gibson LJ ‘It is clear, in my judgment, from the passages cited that the concept of a tenant not losing the protection of the Rent Acts for his occupation of the dwelling house as his residence, although he is not himself in physical occupation, was designed to ensure protection notwithstanding those absences which are consistent with the tenant retaining and intending to retain the dwelling house as his residence and not, where for example the tenant’s absence is because he is merely making money by sub-letting …. It is also clear to my mind that the continuing intention to return to occupy the premises at some later date is not by itself sufficient to constitute occupation of the dwelling house as his residence if the tenant has left no sufficient physical sign of that intention. It may be that in some circumstances furniture will serve as such a visible sign, particularly if the tenant leaves also those personal possessions such as books, pictures and ornaments, which are capable of indicating that a tenant is still treating the premises as his home. There is no principle of law which says that the mere presence of furniture, consistent with an ordinary furnished letting at market rent could serve for that purpose.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ

Citations:

[1990] 22 HLR 9

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUjima Housing Association v Ansah and Another CA 17-Oct-1997
The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease.
Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220480

Regina v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Hinds: 1995

Citations:

[1995] 28 HLR 302

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v The London Borough of Newham Ex Parte Qureshi Admn 18-Sep-1997
The applicant, and her children, had lived in England, but returned to Pakistan for six months. On their return they first lived with their parents, but then sought housing as homeless. She appealed the finding that she was intentionally homeless. . .
CitedHasan, 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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183490

Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Ashley: 1996

Citations:

(1996) 29 HLR 385

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAhmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
ApprovedLondon Borough of Lambeth v A CA 23-Jul-2002
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot . .
CitedAhmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.314326

Dellenty v Pellow: 1951

The payment off of arrears of rent will not necessarily prevent an order for possession being made where there is a history of arrears and poor payment.

Citations:

[1951] 2 KB 858, [1951] 2 All ER 716

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPaddington Churches Housing Association Ltd v Sharif CA 27-Jan-1997
The landlord had obtained a possession order against its secure tenant. The tenant had left to go to Egypt, and had been in arrears of rent. The tenancy obliged the tenant to occupy the prperty as his main residence. The landlord re-let the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.239720

Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte M: 1997

Citations:

(1997) 1 CCLR 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-2003
Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Immigration

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185835

Regina v Canterbury City Council ex parte Gillespie: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 19 HLR 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedConway, Regina (on the Application of) v Mayor and Burgesses of the Borough of Charnwood Admn 17-Jan-2002
The applicant sought to be placed on the defendant borough’s rehousing list. She was disabled with four dependant children. She had family who would be able to help her if she moved. Before her appeal was heard the Borough changed its policy to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182198

Regina (Stewart) v Wandsworth London Borough Council and Others: QBD 17 Sep 2001

The words ‘within their area’ in the section had to be read consistently with other parts of the Act, and therefore, the duty to carry out an assessment if a child had a physical connection with the area. A temporary housing in a homeless hostel within the authority district was sufficient.

Judges:

Mr Jack Beatson, QC

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17(1)(a), Housing Act 1996 190

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte Caddell Admn 9-Jun-1997
When a child in care attains the age of eighteen, the local authority in whose care the child was before attaining that age, is the one who must provide continuing advice and support. . .
CitedRegina v Kent County Council, Ex parte Salisbury and Pierre Admn 19-May-1999
Continuing duties of local authrity to children who have been in care on attaining majority. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166809

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar: CA 25 Jun 1996

Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within s59.
Held: Such destitution was capable of being a reason within the Act, and the appeal against refusal of the assistance was allowed. Deprivation of asylum seekers of benefits made them vulnerable and in housing need. Case law suggested that the ejusdem generis rule should not be applied in construing the section so as to restrict its application.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Waite, Neill LJJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-1996, Independent 03-Jul-1996, [1996] 29 HLR 147

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 59(1)(c), Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Kihara; Regina v Similar QBD 1-May-1996
The words ‘other special reason’ for housing need within the section are to be to be read narrowly. The section was to be read as a whole and was not indended to cover impecuniosity through the denial of benefits. . .
DoubtedOrtiz v City of Westminster CA 1994
The applicant was a twenty four year old woman with a history of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was in fact suitable hostel accommodation available which had been offered to the applicant at the relevant time and it was hard to see why she . .
ApprovedWilson v Nithsdale District Council 1992
An eighteen year old girl had been sexually assaulted, was unable to return home, had been expelled from a hostel for suspected theft and was said to be at risk of further sexual assault if not provided with suitable accommodation. She sought . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Housing

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87058

Regina v Westminster London Borough Council ex parte Al-Khorsan: QBD 14 Dec 1999

Having set aside a number of houses for the homeless, the local authority then failed, when allocating places, to consider the remaining and relevant statutory tests for deciding who should get what place.
Held: The statutory criteria remained relevant, and the homelessness as such was not sufficiently serious to overwhelm other considerations. The policy was unlawful.

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2000, [1999] EWHC 835 (Admin), (2001) 33 HLR 6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 Part VI

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88705

Nottingham City Council v Thames: CA 26 Jul 2002

The local authority sought an order under the Act after its staff, working at a centre on the estate where the defendant resided had been threatened.
Held: There was no sufficient nexus between the staff and residence on the estate. The Enfield case was binding. The staff were not residents entitled to protection under the Act, and protection must be sought elsewhere.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward and Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 19-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedEnfield London Borough Council v B (A Minor) and Another CA 2-Sep-1999
In order to grant an injunction under the section, a person sought to be protected had to have some real nexus or connection with the residential premises involved. A connection with the area in general was insufficient. A milkman visiting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Crime, Local Government

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.174713

Gaskin, Regina (on The Application of) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2018

The court was asked ‘does the owner of a house in multiple occupation (‘HMO’) provide a ‘service’ for the purposes of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (‘the Services Directive’)?’

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1996 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, European, Local Government, Licensing

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621440

Lomax v Gosport Borough Council: CA 1 Aug 2018

The court was asked whether Gosport BC correctly applied sections 175 and 177 of the 1996 Act in concluding that it was reasonable for a severely disabled applicant for housing to continue to occupy her accommodation.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1846

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 175 177

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620606

Sambotin, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Brent: CA 31 Jul 2018

Reasons for dismissal of claim – whether a local housing authority can reconsider its determination of an applicant’s eligibility for assistance under Part VII of the 1996 Act after it has made a ‘local connection’ referral to another authority.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1826

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620477

XPQ v The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: QBD 7 Jun 2018

The claimants said that the defendant housing authority had failed in its duties toward her as a victim of sex trafficking to provide her with accommodation as a homeless person.
Held: The claim failed.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1391 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 349

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Parliament and Council Directive 2011/36/EU

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620077

TW and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and Another: Admn 13 Jul 2018

The Claimants challenged the Social Housing Allocation Policy of the Borough in so far as it provided: (1) a condition that only households with at least 10 years’ continuous residence in-borough qualify to join the three welfare-based bands (A-C) of its housing register; (2) #additional preference for such households who are in Bands C and B of the housing register, and (3) additional preference for those in Bands C and B who are working households on low income.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1791 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619928

Hexlink Ltd T/A Excel Property v London Borough of Camden: FTTGRC 12 Jun 2018

Professional Regulation – failure to publicise details of the client money protection scheme

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0041

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 83(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618879

The Vita Property Group v London Borough of Camden: FTTGRC 19 Apr 2018

Professional Regulation – alleged failure to publish full details of agents tenant fees on their website and details of agents landlord fees on their website

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 00045

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618876

Station Estates v London Borough of Newham v London Borough of Newham: FTTGRC 9 Jan 2018

Professional Regulation – appeals against a penalty charge of 10,000 pounds related to failure to publicise details of fees and a client money protection statement

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0024

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618867

Yasir and Co Ltd v London Borough of Newham: FTTGRC 21 Mar 2018

appeal against a Final Notice in which the Council imposed a financial penalty on the Appellant company for undertaking property management or letting agency work without being a member of a government approved redress scheme.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0031

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618872

Lets4U v North Kesteven District Council: FTTGRC 29 May 2018

Professional Regulation – failure to belong to redress scheme

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0050

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Redress Scheme for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc. (England) Order 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Consumer

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618877

Witney Properties Ltd v West Oxfordshire District Council: FTTGRC 15 Feb 2018

Appeal against a Final Notice imposing a financial penalty of 5,000 pounds on the Appellant company for undertaking property management or letting agency work without being a member of a government approved redress scheme.
Held: Refused

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0016

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 Sch 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618868

Silks Estates (Yorkshire) Ltd v Leeds City Council: FTTGRC 21 Mar 2018

Appeal against a Final Notice in which the Council imposed a financial penalty of 2,500 pounds on the Appellant company for undertaking property management or letting agency work without being a member of a government approved redress scheme.
Held: Penalty increased

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0043

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618870

Baraka, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 Jun 2018

The Claimant seeks to challenge the failure of the Defendant to provide him with accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so as to enable his release on bail from immigration detention.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1549 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618414

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 24 May 2018

Claim for damages for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising out of alleged breaches of statutory duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1287 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618117

Worthington and Another v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd: CA 17 May 2018

Appeal by the defendant housing association against a judgment holding that the Association had unlawfully harassed two of its tenants contrary to s1 of the 1997 At.

Judges:

Kitchin LJ, Rose J

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1125

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Torts – Other

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616342

WB v W District Council: CA 26 Apr 2018

The Court was asked whether and when n a person who is homeless and suffers from mental illness may apply for housing under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (‘HA 1996’).

Judges:

Arden, Lewison, Asplin :JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 928, [2018] WLR(D) 256

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614919