Tag: Housing

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

Andrews and Another v Cunningham: CA 23 Jul 2007

The elderly appellant claimed a non-shorthold assured tenancy. He had moved in in 1999, but had been given a rent book which described the tenancy as an assured tenancy. The now deceased landlord had himself occupied another flat in the building.
Held: Whilst the landlord occupied the house, the tenancy could only be a common law tenancy subject to one month’s notice. The rentbook describing the tenancy as an assured tenancy did not prevent it also being an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy had become an assured shorthold tenancy on conversion, and the tenant’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Wilson LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 762

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Cited – Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
Cited – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258297

Abdi, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 26 Jun 2007

The claimant had had her application for housing as a homeless person rejected by the council, and now said that it was unfair that the same officer had also rejected her subsequent application for temporary housing pending her appeal.
Held: The Act intended the nomination of officers to make such decisions, and imposed specific rules where a review of a rejection was required. There was no requirement that a different officer should consider the applications by this claimant, and a fair-minded and informed observer would not see any real possibility of bias.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1565 (Admin), Times 11-Jul-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 184

Housing

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254343

Islington London Borough Council v Honeygan-Green (Honeygan): QBD 25 May 2007

The court considered whether the determination of a secure tenancy by the granting of a possession order, brings to an end an existing application which has established the right to buy at a particular time and at a particular price, or whether such an application is capable of being revived once the tenancy itself has been revived.
Held: Once the possession order had been granted, the tenant became a tolerated trespassser. Once she repaid the arrears, she became a secure tenant again, but she would then have to make a fresh application to purchase a long lease.

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1270 (QB), Times 28-Jun-2007, [2007] 4 All ER 818

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 122

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington CA 22-Apr-2008
The claimant was a council tenant with the right to buy her property. A possession order was made, but then discharged.
Held: On the revival of the tenancy her right to buy and discount was also revived, and there was no need to serve a fresh . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253273

Polar Park Enterprises v Allason: ChD 18 Apr 2007

The defendant occupied property belonging to the claimant. An order for immediate possession had been granted in January. The defendant now said that part of the order was been made without jurisdiction.
Held: Though he occupied the property as a licensee only of the claimant, that licence had been granted against the promise of the defendant to repair and insure the property. It had been granted for ‘money or money’s worth’. That made the defendant and his family lawful occupiers of the property even after the licence was terminated, and that he had the protection of the 1977 Act, and that he could only be evicted by means of a court order. The order made in January had been to that extent made without jurisdiction, and the writ for possession was revoked.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1088 (Ch), Times 26-Jun-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(7), Protection from Eviction Act 1977 3A(7)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Polarpark Enterprises Inc v Allason ChD 22-Jan-2007
The defendant occupied the claimant’s property as a residence under a license. The claimant had sought immediate possession. The defendant claimed that he either owned it, had a claim in adverse possession, or a license and the right to protection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252308

Polarpark Enterprises Inc v Allason: ChD 22 Jan 2007

The defendant occupied the claimant’s property as a residence under a license. The claimant had sought immediate possession. The defendant claimed that he either owned it, had a claim in adverse possession, or a license and the right to protection under the 1977 Act.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 22 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Polar Park Enterprises v Allason ChD 18-Apr-2007
The defendant occupied property belonging to the claimant. An order for immediate possession had been granted in January. The defendant now said that part of the order was been made without jurisdiction.
Held: Though he occupied the property . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247968

Morgan v Stirling Council: SCS 10 Oct 2006

(Outer House) Lord Glennie pointed out that anyone who is homeless is also vulnerable, and accordingly it follows that section 189(1)(c) must contemplate homeless people who would be more vulnerable than many others in the same position (especially given the words ‘or other special reason’ which show that vulnerability arising from many causes is covered).

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 154, [2006] Hous LR 95, 2006 SLT 962

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Hotak 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.

Scotland, Housing

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245477

Burrows 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 appealed.
Held: The agreement had created a new tenancy even after a final possession order had been made, and a A new possession order was required before any warrant could be issued. Had the authority obtained a suspended possession order, no new tenancy might have been created. While a tenant could not sue for breach of a landlord’s covenant while the tenancy was in the state of limbo, if and when the secure tenancy revived, its covenants likewise revived and were to be treated as having been in existence during the limbo period.
An agreement which allowed a tenant to stay on in a house after a possession order had been made, did not itself create a new tenancy, but he might have the status of being a ‘tolerated trespasser’: ‘In the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional does not create a new secure tenancy or licence.’ However, a tenant who had not been evicted could apply under section 85(2) to postpone the date of possession, and, upon such postponement, the secure tenancy would be revived because ‘the date on which the tenant is to give up possession’ would not have arisen and thus the tenancy would not have ended. Until a possession order was executed, the court could by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which had already been terminated.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘What, then, is the correct legal analysis? I start from the proposition that where a former tenant is by agreement allowed to remain in possession of the demised property after the termination of the tenancy, the question in each case is quo animo the parties have so acted: depending upon the circumstances, their conduct may give rise to a new tenancy, a licence or some other arrangement. In the present case, on 5 February 1992 the parties plainly did not intend to create a new tenancy or licence but only to defer the execution of the order so long as Miss Burrows complied with the agreed conditions. It cannot be right to impute to the parties an intention to create a legal relationship such as a secure tenancy or licence unless the legal structures within which they made their agreement force that conclusion.
A secure tenancy protected by Part IV of the Act of 1985 is not like an ordinary tenancy. It can only be terminated by an order of the court ordering possession to be given on a particular date or in a particular event. But even determination by order of the court is not final. Until the possession order is executed, the court can by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which has already been terminated. During the period between the date specified by the order for the giving of possession and the date on which the order is executed there is a period of limbo: the old tenancy has gone but may yet be revived by a further order of the court varying the date for possession. If the parties reach an agreement as to the continued occupation of the premises by the tenant during that limbo period, what intention is to be imputed to them?
In my judgment little guidance is to be obtained from the cases where a tenant holds over after the termination of an ordinary tenancy where there is no possibility that the expired tenancy can revive. The position in relation to secure tenancies is sui generis. In my judgment, the agreement can and should take effect in the way the parties intend, i.e. it is an agreement by the landlords that, upon the tenant complying with the agreed conditions, the landlords will forbear from executing the order, i.e. from taking the step which would finally put an end to the tenant’s right to apply to the court for an order reviving the tenancy. There is no need to impute to the parties an intention to create a new tenancy or licence: the retention of possession and the payment of rent relate to occupation under the old tenancy which is in limbo but which may be revived. In these circumstances I think it is fair to characterise the former tenant as a trespasser whom the landlord has agreed not to evict – a ‘tolerated trespasser’ – pending either the revival of the old tenancy or the breach of the agreed conditions.
Once the effect of section 85 is appreciated, the absurdities which led the Court of Appeal not to accept that Miss Burrows could be a tolerated trespasser disappear. Technically the old secure tenancy is, during the limbo period, no longer in existence and therefore neither the repairing covenants in the tenancy nor the Defective Premises Act 1972 apply. But the tenant can at any time apply to the court for an order varying the date on which possession is to be given and thereby retrospectively revive the old secure tenancy, together with its covenants. If the tenant has complied with the agreed conditions, there can be little doubt that the court would make the required order. Moreover, the tenant will not be a homeless person within section 58(2) of the Act of 1985 because the tenant will be occupying the residence by virtue of any ‘rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation:’ see section 58(2)(c). If the tenant were in breach of any of the covenants in the old secure tenancy, Brent could apply to vary the order so as retrospectively to revive the old tenancy together with its covenants.
Finally, there is a method (albeit a clumsy one) whereby the order for possession even if an immediate unconditional order, can be discharged or rescinded if so desired under section 85(4). The power in that subsection to discharge or rescind only arises ‘if the conditions are complied with,’ a requirement which cannot be satisfied in the case of an unconditional order. But there is no reason why the order cannot be discharged by consent or, if such consent is not forthcoming, by the court varying the original order so as to impose the agreed conditions and then discharging the varied order.
It was submitted that the fact that the tenancy was granted to Miss Burrows jointly with Mr. Allen whereas the agreement of 5 February 1992 was made with Miss Burrows alone, indicated that the agreement must have given rise to a new tenancy with Miss Burrows alone. Therefore there must be a new tenancy. However, since in my view on its proper analysis the arrangement contained in the agreement of 5 February 1992 gave rise to no new tenancy with anyone, that factor is irrelevant. I therefore reach the conclusion that, in the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional, does not create a new secure tenancy or licence under Part IV of Act of 1985.
As Brent, by making the agreement of 5 February 1992, did not grant a new tenancy or licence to Miss Burrows as from 12 February 1992. It follows that the possession order of 29 January 1992 was properly enforced. I would therefore reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge and dismiss Miss Burrows’s action.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘whereas an order postponing the date of possession necessarily affects the operation of section 82(2), an order staying or suspending the execution of an order for possession on a stated date has no effect on the operation of that subsection but merely postpones execution so long as the conditions of suspension are complied with.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson L

Citations:

Gazette 20-Nov-1996, Times 04-Nov-1996, [1996] 4 All ER 577, [1997] 1 EGLR 32, [1997] 2 FCR 43, [1996] NPC 149, [1997] Fam Law 246, [1996] UKHL 20, (1997) 29 HLR 167, [1997] 11 EG 150, [1997] 1 FLR 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 82 85(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Cannan v Hartley 1850
. .
Cited – Gray v Bompas 1862
. .
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Appeal from – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon 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 . .
Distinguished – 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Richmond 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 . .
Cited – Harlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
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 – Austin v Southwark London Borough Council (355) QBD 29-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington CA 22-Apr-2008
The claimant was a council tenant with the right to buy her property. A possession order was made, but then discharged.
Held: On the revival of the tenancy her right to buy and discount was also revived, and there was no need to serve a fresh . .
Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
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: . .
Cited – 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: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78761

Harlow District Council v Hall: CA 28 Feb 2006

The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was such an enforcement.
Held: Where the terms of suspension were expressed so as to indicate that the order for possession took effect on a specified date, but execution was suspended on terms, the secure tenancy ended on the specified date, even if the terms of suspension were complied with. The secure tenancy had already come to an end by the time of the bankruptcy. The 1985 Act made a specific distinction between suspending execution of a possession order, and postponing the date for possession. The maintenance of the possession order was not an action against the property of the defendant. The possession order was not vitiated by the bankruptcy.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick, Chancellor, The Right Hon Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 2116, [2006] EWCA Civ 156, Times 15-Mar-2006, [2006] BPIR 712, [2006] HLR 27, [2006] 2 P and CR 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 79, Insolvency Act 1986 285

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smith (a bankrupt) v Braintree District Council HL 1989
The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.
Cited – Ezekiel v Orakpo CA 1977
A lease had been forfeited for non payment of rent. The lessor then took proceedings for possession. The tenant claimed that the action was invalid because a receiving order had been made against him in the meantime.
Held: The Court rejected . .
Cited – Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .
Cited – Burrows 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
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 – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
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: . .
Cited – 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.

Housing, Insolvency

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239849

London Borough of Lambeth v Vandra and others: CA 19 Dec 2005

The council had taken possession proceedings to evict their secure tenant for unlawful subletting. They appealed overturning of their possession order. The judge had found that two visits from a housing officer were inadequate to establish proof of subletting, or to move the burden of proof to the tenant in the absence of direct evidence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The district judge had made various findings of fact, including that there was nothing to show any occupation by the tenant, rooms were being used as individual occupations, with no central living room, and those present claimed to be paying rent to a third party: ‘the district judge was entitled to conclude that there was in this case an unlawful subletting. The fact that the explanations were not credible does not mean that there was a complete vacuum in relation to a subletting of the whole. As I mentioned earlier, a possible view of the evidence was that there was subletting of only part. But the fact that that was a possible inference does not make impossible the inference by the district judge that, taking all of the facts together and the lack of a credible explanation from Miss Vandra, it was reasonable to infer that there was a subletting of the whole. ‘

Judges:

Mummery, Latham, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238642

Richmond 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 asked the period to be extended. The tenant did not appear at the first hearing, and the judge extended the term and made other provisions. The tenant now argued that the moving of the date revived his secure tenancy under the rule in Burrows.
Held: The tenant’s appeal was dismissed. It was impossible to see the judge’s order as being intended to revive the tenancy with Burrows type consequences: ‘ the combination of the two orders had exactly the reverse effect. That the judge kept in place the application to enforce the sanction imposed for the original breaches of the tenancy showed quite clearly that the last thing that he saw himself as doing was to relieve the tenant from the consequences of those breaches.’

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 68, Times 27-Feb-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch2 Gr2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burrows 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 . .
Cited – Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238524

Calgin, 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 had been adopted after an acute shortage of affordable housing. That policy was not Wednesbury unreasonable. It was not applied to more than a small percentage of applicants, and secured a proper saving for the Borough.

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin), Times 27-Sep-2005, [2006] BLGR 1, [2006] HLR 4, [2006] ACD 28, [2006] 1 FCR 58, [2006] 1 All ER 112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 208, Homelessness Act 2002 1(1) 1(3)

Citing:

Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 – Jordan v Norfolk County Council ChD 25-May-1994
An order to replace trees ‘as reasonably practical’ was to include cost considerations, and it could be varied where the costs exceeded those expected. The mandatory order was varied. When considering what was meant by ‘reasonably practical’ ‘. . . .
Cited – Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council ex parte Eckpo-Wedderman 1998
The court considered the matters to be taken into account by a local authority when setting its housing policy: ‘I do not believe that a local housing authority, considering (as it is right that it should) whether to meet a particular and perhaps . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – 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. . .

Cited by:

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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229303

Hammia, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Wandsworth: Admn 17 May 2005

The applicant’s partner had left the matrimonial home, tenanted in joint names with the applicant of the authority, and went to the authority saying she had been beaten. Before the authority would agree to treat her as homeless they required her to terminate the joint tenancy thus leaving the applicant homeless.
Held: It was to be noted that the authority had made no approach to the applicant to ask his version of events. The letter from the authority made it clear that the statutory criteria had been met. It had a duty to rehouse te partner. The authority had no power to then make an additional requirement of the partner that she surrender the tenancy. That policy was unlawful. However, the claimant was not entitled to the declaration sought. This was a private law matter. Though there might be some injustice this flowed from the law of joint tenancies.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1127 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 193(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226108

London 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 sought possession.
Held: The use of the word ‘rent’ in a letter from Newham was insufficient to create a new tenancy. ‘the appellants cannot succeed unless they can show that at the date of her death Mrs Hawkins had been granted a tenancy in her own right by Newham. the rights of succession on which the appellants rely do not arise if Mrs Hawkins was then in occupation either as a tolerated trespasser or as a successor to the tenancy previously vested in Mr Hawkins. ‘ and ‘all that happened in the present case was that Newham, by accepting Mrs Hawkins’ continued occupation in the way it did, agreed to forbear from enforcing the possession order so long as Mrs Hawkins’ occupation was satisfactory to it and thereby precluded itself from objecting if she chose to apply to the court for a variation of the suspended possession order. There was no offer of new terms or demand for an increased rent which might have shown that the intention of the parties was to create a new tenancy.’ There was no basis for saying that a new tenancy had arisen.

Judges:

Auld, Arden LJJ, Bennett J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 451 (Admin), [2005] EWCA Civ 451, Times 03-May-2005

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burrows 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 . .
Cited – Marshall 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .
Cited – Swindon 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Housing

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224784

Moat Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris and Another: CA 16 Mar 2005

The defendant family was served without notice with an anti-social behaviour order ordering them to leave their home immediately, and making other very substantial restrictions. The evidence in large part related to other people entirely.
Held: To grant an injunction without notice is to grant an exceptional remedy. As to hearsay evidence: ‘ the experience of this case should provide a salutary warning for the future that more attention should be paid by claimants in this type of case to the need to state by convincing direct evidence why it was not reasonable and practicable to produce the original maker of the statement as a witness. If the statement involves multiple hearsay, the route by which the original statement came to the attention of the person attesting to it should be identified as far as practicable.’ It would be right to suspend the possession order on terms as to further breaches of the tenancy agreement and nuisance. The ASBO’s were not established to be necessary, and undertakings should be required instead.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) And Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 287

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 153A 153C 153D, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, County Courts Act 1984 77(6)(ee)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (M) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor CA 18-Mar-2004
The making of an interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order not on notice was not an infringement of the subject’s human rights, since the order was limited in time and subject to review by the courts. However, ‘The more intrusive the order the more the . .
Cited – Medina Housing Association v Case CA 16-Dec-2002
The claimant had obtained an order for possession against the defendant for her repeated anti-social behaviour. The court granted in addition to the possession order an injunction restraining the defendant from coming near the premises for a further . .
Cited – Masich v Masich CA 1977
A husband was served at 3.30 pm with an ex parte order requiring him to vacate the matrimonial home at 6 pm the same day.
Held: There was nothing to justify turning the husband out of his home without hearing his side: ‘Such a course should be . .
Cited – Ansah v Ansah CA 1977
Ormrod LJ: ‘Orders made ex parte are anomalies in our system of justice which generally demands service or notice of the proposed proceedings on the opposite party: see Craig v Karssen [1943] KB 256, 262. Nevertheless, the power of the court to . .
Cited – Practice Note (Matrimonial Cause: Injunction) FD 1978
‘The President is greatly concerned by the increasing number of applications being made ex parte in the Royal Courts of Justice for injunctions, which could and should have been made (if at all) on two clear days’ notice to the other side, as . .
Cited – G v G (Ouster: Ex parte Application) CA 1990
An ex parte order was made requiring a wife to vacate the family home immediately and was served on her when she was bringing two of the children of the family home from school.
Held: Lord Donaldson MR: there was no reason why the judge could . .
Cited – Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bock 1912
(High Court of Australia) ‘There is a primary precept governing the administration of justice, that no man is to be condemned unheard; and therefore, as a general rule, no order should be made to the prejudice of a party unless he has the . .
Cited – Solon South West Housing Association Limited v Lisa James Eran James CA 20-Dec-2004
Hearsay evidence is available on an application for an ASBO or the trial of a possession action. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Cumming v Danson CA 1942
The court considered what amounted to reasonable alternative accomodation.
Held: it was the judge’s duty to take into account all relevant circumstances as they exist at the date of the hearing. There is a fundamental difference in the Rent . .
Cited – Cresswell v Hodgson CA 1951
The landlord sought possession. The tenant had a controlled tenancy. L offered the tenant another house (one he had built) as alternative accommodation. The rent was higher. The landlord was under pressure from his bank and wanted capital to pay off . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Council of City of Manchester v McCann CA 16-Nov-1998
A threat made against a witness is clearly an insult within the Act, and a threat made as a witness returns home after court is also a contempt even though not strictly in the face of the Court.
Section 118 of the 1984 Act now provides an . .
Cited – Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Simmonds CA 15-Jul-1996
A possession order was properly made against a tenant for the misbehaviour of a family member. . .
Cited – West Kent Housing Association Limited v Davies CA 4-Feb-1998
The court should recognise the seriousness of the case where the Housing Association was doing its best to improve the quality of life for those living on a housing estate, when its efforts included obtaining witnesses as to the tenant’s behaviour . .
Cited – Regina v Parkin (Shane Tony) CACD 3-Feb-2004
The defendant had admitted assault with intent to rob, four attempted robberies, and four false imprisonments. He appealed his sentence of four years detention in a Young Offenders Institution to be followed by a two year anti-social behaviour order . .
Cited – Canterbury City Council v Lowe CA 2001
The defendants had made the lives of a neighbour and his daughter (and his mentally ill mother, who sometimes visited them) ‘a completely misery’. The trial judge had received graphic evidence about the very serious nature of the defendants’ . .
See Also – Moat Housing Group South Ltd v Harris and Another CA 17-Dec-2004
The Housing Association had obtained a possession order against the appellant family, who now sought a stay of execution pending their appeal.
Held: The presence of children in the house meant that the balance had to include consideration of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lawer, Regina (on the Application of) v Restormel Borough Council Admn 12-Oct-2007
The applicant was joint tenant of a council property. She suffered domestic violence, and said she was advised by the local authority to surrender her tenancy on the basis that they would rehouse her. She did so. The authority refused to provide a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223581

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 she applied again. Her application was accepted but the previous offer and refusal were said to remain in effect.
Held: The decision in Fahia was to be preferred to that in Campisi, with the result that the authority need reconsider only if the claimant could establish that she was now in a different position. No material change had been shown, and the appeal was rejected.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2463 (Admin), Times 03-Jan-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 184

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Delahaye v Oswestry Borough Council 29-Jul-1980
The applicant had made more than one application for emergency housing and temporary accomodation pending the result of her application.
Held: It could not have been the intention of Parliament that a similar statute should be used by someone, . .
Cited – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark ex parte Campisi CA 9-Jul-1998
The claimant had made more than one application for emergency housing.
Held: ‘Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant’s claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and . .
Cited – Regina (Fatima Jeylani) v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2002
A declaration was granted requiring the local authority to consider the further homelessness application after the authority had followed the approach in Campisi and in consequence, it had refused to consider a further homelessness application of . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218873

Moore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee: CA 17 Oct 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 4-May-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218446

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 succeeded.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 454, [2002] HLR 21, (2001) 82 P and CR DG7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 34(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – 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. . .
Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218039

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another: CA 16 Jan 2002

Judges:

Judge, Latham, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 279

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 9(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Appeal from – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216738

South Hams District Council v Shough and Others: CA 2 Dec 1992

There was a possible duty on a council not to evict trespassers claiming to be gypsies. If the authority had a duty to house the applicants, but failed to provide accommodation in accordance with that duty, it could be wrong to make an order supporting an attempt to evict them. The duty to house was a higher duty than the duty to recover possession of land.

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Staughton LJ

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jan-1993, Times 08-Dec-1992

Statutes:

Caravan Sites Act 1968 6(1) 7(1), Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Avon District Council v Buscott 1988
The grounds on which any application for judicial review are to be based may not be raised as a defence in the civil proceedings unless a private law right has been infringed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.89411

Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another: Admn 7 Oct 2004

The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter had been settled the court was invited to pursue the decision.
Held: The Act was intended to fulfil the purpose of promoting family life, and therefore the human rights of the claimant were engaged under Art 14, and ‘the Council’s refusal to treat the Claimant as having a priority need for accommodation in circumstances where a parent with a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control would have been treated as having a priority need for accommodation amounted to an infringement of her right under Art. 14 to enjoy her right to respect for her family life under Art. 8 without discrimination.’ A declaration of incompatibility was made.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin), Times 20-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 865, [2005] 1 All ER 351, [2004] UKHRR 1126, [2004] HRLR 43, [2005] 1 FLR 429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 185(4)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Regina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 . .
Distinguished – Gaygusuz v Austria ECHR 16-Sep-1996
The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Cited – Gay v Sheeran, London Borough of Enfield CA 18-Jun-1999
The ability for a court to order the transfer of a secure tenancy between partners under the Act depended upon the court first making an occupation order in favour of the party from whom the tenancy was to be transferred, but the order could be made . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
Appeal from – Westminster City Council and Another v Morris; Regina (Badu) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 14-Oct-2005
The claimant sought housing assistance. She had a child. She was subject to immigration control. She complained that when considering her application, the Act required the authority to disregard her responsibiltes to her children.
Held: The . .
Cited – Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215932

Queensway Housing Association Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Committee; Laira Properties Ltd v Same; Cherry Tree Investments v Similar Etc: QBD 11 Dec 1998

When choosing areas for assessment of amenity values and scarcity values an area in which a tenant could reasonably expect to choose from ignoring the amenity area, but not a really large area such as the South East of England.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1998, Gazette 03-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 70(1) 70(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.85093

Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council,: Admn 26 May 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198219

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina 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 from – Regina 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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88205

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.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 11-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88303

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Obeid: QBD 16 Jul 1996

Loss of a house from ignorance of benefit rules was not deliberate homelessness.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1996, (1996) 29 HLR 389

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 60(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – F v Birmingham City Council CA 2-Nov-2006
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person with her children. The authority found her in priority need, but intentionally homeless. Her appeal against the adverse review failed, and she appealed again. She had given up a council flat and had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88305

English Churches Housing Group v Shine: CA 7 Apr 2004

The claimant was a secure tenant of English Churches Housing Group. He was unemployed and lived on benefits. He claimed damages against his landlord for breaches of the repairing covenants implied by section 11. The court considerd the appropriate level of damages. For the breach of landlord’s covenant to repair.
Held: The court allowed the landlord’s appeal and reduced the damages to andpound;8,000, subject to set-off in respect of some of the landlord’s costs. Where a tenant was awarded damages for a landlord’s breach of his covenant to repair, the damages awarded should reflect the rent payable under the lease. The tenant here had the benefit of a secure tenancy at a rent well below the market rent, and the damages were reduced accordingly. The court criticised the conduct of the hearing by the judge: ‘[The judge’s] behaviour is unacceptable. He is both abrupt and discourteous. He makes it clear he is not prepared to entertain argument, and gives no reasons.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 434, Times 02-Jun-2004, Gazette 20-May-2004, [2004] HLR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGriel v Wake CA 1984
. .
Cited – Fayner v Bilton 1878
. .
Cited – Wallace and others v Manchester City Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Damages payable to a tenant for a landlord’s failure to repair whilst the tenant remained in the property were not separate damages for discomfort and diminution in rental value since these amounted to the same thing: ‘for periods when the tenant . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu CA 23-Mar-2006
The authority complained that during the course of the trial, the judge had repeatedly intervened during oral evidence.
Held: A judge must be careful not to repeatedly intervene during oral evidence as opposed to counsel making submissions. . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Damages

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197044

Campbell and others v South Northamptonshire District Council, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions: CA 7 Apr 2004

The claimants were members of the Jesus Fellowship church, living communally. Their claim for housing benefit was rejected on the basis that the payment made was not by way of a commercial rental.
Held: The court could take into account the background of the payments in deciding whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis. To take that into account was not discrimination infringing their freedom of religion. The question posed was one of fact, and the Convention did not operate to make evidence inadmissible on such an issue.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 409, Times 23-Apr-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 387

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195490

Erskine, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth and Another: Admn 14 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2479 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187609

Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co: QBD 30 Oct 2003

The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was voidable, being based upon a common mistake of law.
Held: ‘Courts should be very slow to set aside and declare compromise agreements void on the ground of alleged common mistakes of fact or law. Before declaring a compromise agreement void the court must be satisfied that the mistake, in this case of law, was both common and fundamental to the making of the compromise agreement or to echo Bell v. Lever Brothers ‘was it the common assumption or pre-condition upon which the compromise agreement was made? ‘ In this case the common mistaken assumption as to the law was the fundamental basis for and precondition of the compromise agreement, indeed its only springboard. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2493 (QB), Times 07-Nov-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 1240

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Godwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
Cited – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Cited – Huddersfield Banking Co Ltd v Henry Lister and Son Ltd CA 1895
A consent order, which had been completed and acted upon, but without affecting interests of third parties, was set aside by the Court upon the ground of common mistake of fact.
Kay LJ said: ‘A compromise takes place when there is a question . .
Applied – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Pankhania v The London Borough of Hackney ChD 2002
A brochure listing properties to be sold at auction decribed the property as being subject to a terminable licence. In fact it was a secure tenancy. The question arose as to whether a misrepresentation of law could found a cause of action.
Cited – S v S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) FD 4-Mar-2002
An order for ancillary relief had been made by consent. Later the House of Lords issued a judgment which changed the law which had been the basis of the decision to accept the settlement. The wife now sought to set aside the consent order, and . .
Cited – Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA 1988
A contract of guarantee was made, but based upon a term of fundamental importance which was mistaken as to the existence of certain machines.
Held: The court must first look to the nature of the purported agreement. Steyn J said: ‘Logically, . .
Cited – Classic International Pty Ltd v Lagos 2002
(New South Wales Supreme Court) ‘I am satisfied that both parties believed that the agreement for lease would validly take effect according to its terms and that had they known of the substantial variation which the Retail Leases Act 1994 would . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Cited – Halpern and Another v Halpern and others ComC 24-Mar-2006
The deceased parents, being orthodox Jews, had first made standard wills and then made provision accoding to Jewish law. A dispute after the second death was referred to a Beth Din arbitration. After an initial resolution, various distributions were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187277

London Borough of Harrow v Qazi: CA 3 Dec 2001

The applicant had been a joint tenant of the respondent. His co-tenant had terminated the tenancy. He now challenged the possession proceedings saying that they would deprive him of his home.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question before the court was ‘whether a former tenant whose tenancy has come to an end by operation of law can, after that time, have a right to a home for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention’ The court rejected the argument that article 8 is not engaged where a former tenant lacks any legal or equitable right or interest in the house.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1834, [2002] HLR 276, [2001] EWCA Civ 1834

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185434

Butler, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others: Admn 26 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 886 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others CA 30-Oct-2003
The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others CA 30-Oct-2003
The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Planning, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185570

Parker v Parker: ChD 24 Jul 2003

Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA 22-Jul-2002
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Cited – Pascoe v Turner CA 1-Dec-1978
The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
Cited – Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA 30-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
Cited – Inwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Griffiths v Williams CA 1978
The claimant had been told she could live in a house for her life. On that assurance she improved the house.
Held: She had raised an equity, but how could it be satisfied? The court declined to order the grant of a life interest because it . .
Cited – Watson v Goldsborough CA 1986
The representative of an angling club sent the owner of the land a draft lease. The owner agreed that the club could have a lease, and in reliance on that assurance the club improved the land.
Held: An equity had been established and that it . .
Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
Cited – Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
Cited – Orgee v Orgee CA 5-Nov-1997
The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as . .
Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Cited – Willis v Hoare 1999
Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
Cited – New Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC 1963
(New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – J J Harrison v Harrison 2002
A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA 1921
The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Sopwith v Stuchbury 1983
The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent . .
Cited – Isaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd 1960
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Gibson v Douglas and Another CA 8-Dec-2016
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Housing

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185053

Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 11 Feb 2002

The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing.
Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keith

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Housing Act 1996 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168028

London Borough of Hackney v Ekinci: CA 24 May 2001

The applicant and his seventeen year old wife became homeless. They claimed housing assistance on the ground that the wife was a dependant child.
Held: The authority succeeded. Though persons aged between 16 and 18 in full time education could, under the rules, be treated as dependent children according to the circumstances, the priority under the statute was aimed at protecting those in the relationship of parent and child. The fact that a person also fell within a definition under the code of practice could not displace that.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 776

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147563

Marshall 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 secure tenancy revived automatically once it could be seen that the suspended possession order was under its own terms no longer enforceable and (3) whether the district council had waived any right to rely upon the tenants’ failure to comply with the conditions in the possession order.
Held: It was not open to a landlord to waive breaches of an order so as to resuscitate the original tenancy. There had to be an application to the court. ‘The power to discharge or rescind the order of possession, conferred by section 85 (4) of 1985 Act, is a power which can only be exercised in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time’. The reference to ‘conditions’ in s.85(4) was a reference to the conditions (as varied from time to time under s.85(3)) upon which the order for possession was suspended.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Schiemann LJ and Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 594, (2002) HLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85(3) 85(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council CA 1987
The wife was the secure tenant of the premises, against whom the local authority landlord obtained a possession order on grounds of arrears of rent, not to be enforced on payment of a weekly sum off the arrears in addition to what the order . .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147520

Regina 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 of State.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim they automatically qualify under section 21(1)(a). They can claim as result of the 1996 Act that as a result of their predicament after they arrive in this country reach a state where they qualify under the subsection because of the effect upon them of the problems under which they are labouring. In addition to the lack of food and accommodation is to be added their inability to speak the language, their ignorance of this country and the fact they have been subject to the stress of coming to this country in circumstances which at least involve their contending to be refugees. Inevitably the combined effect of these factors with the passage of time will produce one or more of the conditions specifically referred to in section 21(1)(a). It is for the authority to decide whether they qualify. In making their decision, they can bear in mind the wide terms of the Direction which gives a useful introduction to the application of the subsection. The authorities can anticipate the deterioration which would otherwise take place in the asylum seekers condition by providing assistance under the section. They do not need to wait until the health of the asylum seeker has been damaged.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Woolf), Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Henry

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1032, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997) 1 CCLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Rands v Oldroyd 1959
The ejusdem generis rule is, at best, a very secondary guide to the meaning of a statute. The all-important matter is to consider the purpose of the statute. A statute preventing a civil servant contracting for his employers with a company in which . .
Cited – Quazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Appeal from – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141428

Regina v Camden London Borough Council, Ex Parte Mohammed: Admn 23 May 1997

A local authority’s policy of not giving interim accommodation, pending a review of their refusal of an application for housing assistance, was not unlawful. In exercising their discretion the authority have to balance the objective of maintaining fairness between homeless persons in circumstances where they have decided that no duty is owed to the applicant, and proper consideration of the possibility that the applicant might be right and that to deprive him of accommodation could result in the denial of an entitlement. (4) certain matters will always require consideration, although other matters may also be relevant: (a) the ones requiring consideration were the merits of the case and the extent to which it can properly be said that the decision was one which was either contrary to the apparent merits or was one which involved a very fine balance of judgment; (b) whether consideration is required of new material, information or argument which could have a real effect on the decision under review; (c) the personal circumstances of the applicant and the consequences of an adverse decision on the exercise of the discretion.

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Sep-1997, Times 20-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 502, [1997] 30 HLR 315

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 188(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brighton and Hove Council ex parte Nacion (2) CA 1-Feb-1999
The applicant sought review of a decision not to offer him temporary accomodation pending an appeal following a review of a refusal to offer him emergency accomodation. He had become homeless as a result of imprisonment.
Held: The section gave . .
Cited – Lawer, Regina (on the Application of) v Restormel Borough Council Admn 12-Oct-2007
The applicant was joint tenant of a council property. She suffered domestic violence, and said she was advised by the local authority to surrender her tenancy on the basis that they would rehouse her. She did so. The authority refused to provide a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137447

Regina v Hackney London Borough Council Ex Parte K: CA 12 Nov 1997

A change in housing law is not retrospective so as to allow a local authority to re-assess an asylum seeker as not being in need of emergency housing. Once the decision had been made, it was improper to re-open it and give notice to existing tenants.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 17-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.86792

Away Resorts Ltd v Morgan, Re Sandy Balls Estate: UTLC 16 Apr 2018

PARK HOMES – FTT procedure – protected site – parking – whether FTT has jurisdiction to direct that access to pitch be kept free of obstruction – whether order going further than necessary for the ‘just, expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings’ – s.4(1), Mobile Homes Act 1983 – s.231A(4), Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 123 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.623937

Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Housing Benefit Review Board, Ex Parte Kapur: QBD 28 Jun 2000

An application for a loan or grant toward the costs of repair could constitute steps being taken to make premises habitable. The applicant owned a substantial property which had fallen into disrepair. He claimed housing benefit for the property where he actually lived. The refusal of housing benefit because of the capital value of the other property was incorrect. The rules allowed a disregard for the value of a property being repaired.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 Sch 5 para 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.85592

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 decided – Edwards 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

Hopwood v Cannock Chase District Council: CA 1975

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 373

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McAuley 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. . .
Approved – Edwards 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

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:

Approved – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Hughes 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 from – Ealing 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 . .
Cited – Sharif 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

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 to – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Regina (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 from – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Victor 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 . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – M, 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

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 from – Regina 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 Also – Regina 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 from – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Snelling 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 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. . .
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. . .
Doubted – 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 by:

Cited – Knight 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Applied – 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 . .
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 . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Manchester 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 . .
Cited – Muse 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. . .
Cited – Birmingham 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 . .
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 . .
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 from – Regina 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 . .
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 . .
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:

Cited – Vella 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:

Distinguished – Burrows 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 . .
Cited – Referral 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
. .
Cited – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon 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 . .
Cited – Marshall 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Applied – Burrows 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 . .
Cited – Richmond 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 . .
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: . .
Cited – 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: 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:

Cited – Salford 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 . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – National 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 . .
Cited – Hall 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 . .
Cited – Morgan 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:

Cited – Corner 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:

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: 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:

Approved – 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 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: 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 from – Regina 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 Instance – Regina 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 . .
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: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566159

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:

Cited – Desnousse 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 . .
Cited – Mohamed 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:

Cited – Royal 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