Tag: Housing

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 impinge on the management of the park where the flat was situated. The refusal was correct, since it could not have been intended that the inspector should limit himself to consideration only of the green belt issues.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Statutes:

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

Citing:

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

Housing, Planning, Local Government

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85506

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex Parte Trendgrove Properties Ltd: QBD 3 Jun 1999

A housing grant had been agreed, but when the works were not completed in time. The grant was withdrawn even though partly done. A judicial review of the decision failed because the Act had clearly imposed a requirement that works be completed within a twelve months period. No need to show bad faith.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 189(1)

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85425

Regina v Newham London Borough Counci, ex parte Begum and Another: QBD 11 Oct 1999

A local authority’s duty to house a homeless family could be satisfied by provision of housing outside the Borough. A local authority which had not considered this could not therefore be said to have done all in its power for such a family. The duty was to find housing immediately, even though the result may be temporary and not of the quality it might want to offer on a permanent basis.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85423

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex Parte Khan and Another: QBD 9 May 2000

A person became threatened with homelessness once a court had ordered possession of a property. A local authority investigation the homelessness need must begin to act at that point rather than to await the point at which the possession order was executed, by which time the applicant had become homeless. Once the person was so threatened the authority must commence the process.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 184

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85424

Regina v Bristol City Council, Ex Parte Jacobs: QBD 16 Nov 1999

The payment of water rates was not part of the obligation of a local authority paying housing benefit paid by the tenant to the water supplier. Water rates were not paid by her ‘in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling’ At common law a person in occupation of land under such terms would themselves be expected to contribute financially. The words must be read restrictively, and benefit was not payable.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 10 (1) (d)

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85148

Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council: QBD 7 Nov 1994

An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one flat from the flat above due to the absence (under ceiling, on floor or in the ceiling/underfloor void) of proper insulation. The only way in which the housing association could therefore abate the nuisance was by installing proper sound insulation. Nothing effective was said about how the noise could be abated, because the experts differed.
Held: A nuisance or noise abatement notice had to be specific enough to allow the person served to gain knowledge of what work was required of him to be carried out to secure compliance.

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 07-Nov-1994, [1995] Env LR 176, [1995] 27 HLR 189

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Cited – Budd v Colchester Borough Council CA 30-Jan-1997
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor . .
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Cited – AMEC Building Limited and Squibb and Davies Limited v London Borough of Camden Admn 19-Jul-1996
. .
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.

Environment, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84259

Forebury Estates Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Panel and Others: QBD 11 Jul 2000

Where a rent assessment committee was considering the setting of a rent, it was appropriate to take account of the lists of rents of local local authorities. The connection is however to be made only with care. A high availability or scarcity of a housing list might affect the level of rents of privately available properties.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 Part IV

Housing

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80632

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Grant: CA 23 May 1994

The District Judge is to exercise his discretion informally on suspending possession, and need not apply the rules of evidence rigidly. He may consider that the defendant has sufficent means to support a clearance of the arrears over a reasonable period of time and thus to suspend the rder for possession, without taking direct evidence from him.

Citations:

Ind Summary 23-May-1994, Times 09-May-1994

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Litigation Practice, Land, Evidence

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79010

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice: CA 3 Apr 1995

A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. Section 79 of the 1985 Act had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: ‘The use of the term ‘at any time’ in section 79(1) shows that the section is to have ambulatory effect. Occupiers, that is to say, may be liable to pass in and out of secure tenant status – depending upon whether their landlord for the time being is or is not a local authority; or upon changes in the tenant’s own circumstances taking him in and out of the tenant condition.’

Judges:

Waite LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-May-1995, Times 03-Apr-1995, (1995) 27 HLR 433, [1995] 2 EGLR 9, [1995] 44 EG 139, (1995) LG Rev 909, [1995] EG 54 (CS), [1995] NPC 46

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd CA 2-Nov-2000
The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78274

Regina v Slough Borough Council Ex Parte Khan and Another: QBD 30 Jan 1995

A Local Authority had to consider all possible local connections before passing an applicant for housing under the Act to another other Local Authority for assistance.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-1995, (1995) 27 HLR 492

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic QBD 1996
The applicant challenged a referral of her application for housing as a homeless person by Hammersmith back to Kirklees from where she had moved. She had a cousin in Hammersmith.
Held: Her application for judical review failed. Tucker J: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88041

Stewart, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council: Admn 24 Jan 2018

Claim for judicial review concerning the decision of a local authority that a child was not a ‘child in need’ for the purposes of section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and the consequential refusal to provide the child and her parents with accommodation.

Judges:

Jeremy Baker J

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 55, [2018] EWHC 61 (Admin)

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Housing

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604753

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Reid: UTLC 12 Oct 2017

HOUSING – SELECTIVE LICENSING – Part 3, Housing Act 2004 – landlord convicted of failure to apply for licence but held to be ‘a fit and proper person’ within the Act – whether convictions relevant to decision on length of licence granted – appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 396 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597400

Gullu, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon: Admn 26 Jul 2018

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1937 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Localism Act 2011

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ward and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon and Others CA 16-Apr-2019
Challenge to housing policy as discriminatory against Irish travellers or Kurdish refugees. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.620644

Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (Aka Acheampong): QBD 10 Aug 2017

Appeals from an order in the County Court in favour of the Claimant Council for possession of Property. The issue in the appeal is whether at the time of the notice to quit, she was occupying the Property ‘as a dwelling’ within the meaning of s. 5(1A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The Judge decided that Ms Bucknall did not occupy the Property as a dwelling. The defendant had been provided with interim housing pending determination of application for emergency housing.
Held: Appeal allowed.

Judges:

PopplewellJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2094 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592022

AB v The London Borough of Newham (Housing – Rent Repayment Orders): UTLC 27 Jul 2017

UTLC HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDERS – no conviction – whether reasonable to order repayment of all housing benefit received (less utilities and council tax) – relevant considerations – appellant’s poor mental health – procedural irregularity – s.73-74, Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 299 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591394

Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden: ECHR 8 Jun 2011

The Strasbourg court considered a claim by applicants who had been evicted by a court order at the suit of their landlords, who had determined their tenancy for installing a satellite dish in breach of covenant.
Held: This infringed the applicant’s article 10 rights,

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden ECHR 16-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Pla and Puncernau v Andorra ECHR 13-Jul-2004
A will made by a widow in 1939, left certain property to her son Francesc-Xavier, as tenant for life, with a stipulation that he was to leave this inheritance to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage, failing which the estate was to . .

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591291

Rogerson v Wigan Metropolican Borough Council: QBD 14 Jul 2004

The claimant sought damages under the 1977 Act. The defendant said it had behaved lawfully. He had been housed in a hostel pending a decision on the application for permanent housing as a homeless person, which the defendant said excluded him from protection under the 1977 Act.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed.
Auld LJ said: ‘the solution to this issue rests upon the proper meaning to be given to the concept of ‘a separate and self-contained set of premises’. I do not think that it can simply mean physically separate and self-contained, for two reasons. First, if residential accommodation is provided in self contained premises then they must perforce be physically separated from the rest of the block of accommodation. So the concept of ‘separate’ must be directed to some other aspect. Second, the notion of separate accommodation more naturally, in my view, is referring to accommodation which is separate for each person (with or without a partner). It is not appropriate to describe someone as being in separate accommodation if they are being compelled to share some of the facilities with someone they have not chosen. The separate bedroom does not amount to separate residential accommodation. In this case nobody was in fact required to share the accommodation whilst the appellant was there, but Mr Stark, in my opinion rightly, accepted that this was irrelevant. The potential to require sharing was no different to actual sharing.’

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2005] 2 All ER 1000, [2004] EWHC 1677 (QB), [2005] HLR 10, [2004] 2 PandCR DG21, [2005] BLGR 549

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, Housing Act 1985 622, Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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. . .
Cited – Brennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA 3-Jun-1997
The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .

Cited by:

Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.269952

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 had been rehoused outside the Borough and that the Coucil had failed to take proper account of her and of her children’s needs.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The decision that their duty to secure that accommodation was made available to her had come to an end must be quashed: ‘the authority cannot show that their offer of the property in Bletchley was sufficient to discharge their legal obligations towards the appellant under the 1996 Act. Moreover, their notification to the appellant that their duty towards her had come to an end was purportedly given in circumstances where she did not know, and had no means of knowing, what, if any, consideration had been given to providing accommodation in or nearer to the borough, apart from the general standard paragraph in the letter offering her the Bletchley accommodation the previous day.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 22, [2015] WLR(D) 165, [2015] PTSR 549, [2015] 2 WLR 813, [2015] 2 All ER 942, (2015) 18 CCL Rep 201, [2015] BLGR 215, [2015] HLR 22, UKSC 2014/0275

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Appeal from – Nzolameso v City of Westminster CA 22-Oct-2014
The authority accepted that it owed a duty to house the appellant, and that she was unable to afford the rents payable on housing within the district after reductions in housing benefits. She was offered but refused, housing im Milton Keynes. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – Castle and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 8-Sep-2011
The claimants, all under 17 years old, took a peaceful part in a substantial but disorderly demonstration in London. The police decided to contain the section of crowd which included the claimants. The claimants said that the containment of children . .
Cited – Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow CA 21-Nov-2013
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person.
Held: Moses LJ said: ‘The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to that question cannot differ [according to] whether the local authority . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 10-Apr-2013
The court was asked as to important issues as the approach of both planning decision-makers and the court to proportionality in circumstances in which a planning decision engages the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the European . .
Cited – Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 9-Oct-2013
The claimant, seeking permission to use land as a gypsy and travellers’ camp site, appealed against rejection of his request for the quashing of the inspector’s report approving an enforcement notice. . .
Cited – Hines v London Borough of Lambeth CA 20-May-2014
The child applicant sought housing assistance.
Held: The child’s welfare had obviously to be taken into account, but it could not be the paramount consideration as this would be inconsistent with the statutory language. . .
Cited – Royal Mail Group Plc v The Consumer Council for Postal Services CA 7-Mar-2007
The Royal Mail appealed a grant of judicial review of the decision of the Post regulator not to penalise the company for its failure to meet its service conditions as regards enforcement of credit terms for bulk mail customers.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal CA 24-Feb-2004
The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants.
Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Cited – Samuels v Birmingham City Council SC 12-Jun-2019
The appellant had been provided with emergency accommodation after losing her assured shorthold tenancy, but the court was now asked ‘whether the council adopted the correct approach in determining that the accommodation was ‘affordable’ for those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.545697

Trindade v London Borough of Hackney: CA 6 Jul 2017

Appeal against a decision dismissing an appeal brought by the appellant under section 204 of the 1996 Act against an assessment made by the Council upon review under section 202 of the 1996 Act. The Council’s assessment in relation to establishing the extent of the duties it owed the appellant with respect to provision of social housing, was that the appellant was intentionally homeless, as defined in section 191 of the 1996 Act.

Judges:

Sales, Irwin, Moyland LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588992

Hill v Helix Housing Association, Re 45B Knighton Park Road (Landlord and Tenant – Rent Determination – Fair Rent): UTLC 7 Jun 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Rent determination – fair rent – application of Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 – power of First-tier Tribunal to review its own decisions – whether mistaken understanding of relevant facts a permissible ground of appeal – appeal allowed by consent – whether to remit for further consideration

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 238 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.587782

Ljepojevic v University of Cambridge Accommodation Service: UTLC 25 May 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Rent Determination – fair rent – sufficiency of reasons for FTT’s decision that the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 did not apply following improvements to premises – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 213 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584537

Waltham Forest v Khan (Housing – Selective Licencing): UTLC 12 Apr 2017

HOUSING – SELECTIVE LICENCING – Part 3, Housing Act 2004 – residential premises converted without planning permission – whether relevant to decision on licence application – appeals allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 153 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582130

Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – State aid – Existing aid – Article 108(1) TFEU – Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 17, 18 and 19 – Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme – Proposal of appropriate measures – Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law – Compatibility decision – Scope of judicial review – Legal effects

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:215, [2017] EUECJ C-414/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Housing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580723

Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – State aid – Existing aid – Article 108(1) TFEU – Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 17, 18 and 19 – Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme – Proposal of appropriate measures – Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law – Compatibility decision – Scope of judicial review – Legal effects

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:216, [2017] EUECJ C-415/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Housing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580724

Regina v Waveney City Council, ex parte Bowers: CA 25 May 1982

The applicant was an alcoholic and had in 1980 been hit by a motor vehicle and suffered a severe head injury. He sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to house him.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘The question we have to consider is whether or not the applicant is vulnerable and secondly whether the vulnerability is as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical or other special reason. Dealing first with the meaning of ‘vulnerable’, vulnerable literally means ‘may be wounded’ or ‘susceptible of injury’. (See the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th edition (1976), p.1305.) In our opinion, however, vulnerable in the context of this legislation means less able to fend for oneself so that injury or detriment will result when a less vulnerable man will be able to cope without harmful effects.’ and ‘There can be no question here but that the applicant is vulnerable. The Judge accepted that there was a degree of vulnerability. Furthermore it is reasonably clear that the degree of vulnerability increased as a result of serious accident with severe brain injury in the early summer of 1980. Before that, although he had a drink problem, the applicant was able to cope, living in lodgings. Since the accident nobody will give him lodgings and all those who have considered his case take the view that he needs either ‘support’ or ‘help’ or ‘a degree of shelter’ or ‘sheltered accommodation . . . The first question which has to be considered is whether or not there is vulnerability. If there is vulnerability, then does it arise from those matters which are set out within section 2(1)(c)? It may not arise from any single one but it may arise from a combination of those causes.’

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

[1983] QB 238, Times 25-May-1982, [1982] 3 WLR 661, [1982] 3 All ER 727

Statutes:

Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reversed in part – Regina v Waveney District Council ex parte Bowers 25-May-1982
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that he was not homeless under section 1 of the Act. For 15 months he had been using a night shelter in Lowestoft. It was an unheated dormitory in a derelict building. It was empty and closed . .

Cited by:

Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – 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.

Housing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.192636

Jones v Canal and River Trust: CA 7 Mar 2017

The defendant boat owner appealed against an order requiring the removal of his boat from te hwaterway. He had a licence based upon a stated intention of genuine navigation, but had for a period of several months confined the boat with a 5km section. He appealed saying that the respondents had not considered the need to allow for the fact that the boat was his home, with associated human rights.

Judges:

Jackson, McCombe, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 135

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Waterways Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Land, Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579607

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Ealing: Admn 13 Jan 2017

The court considered a local connection referral case, raising a point of principle with respect to determining upon which housing authority the housing duty falls where there has been a cessation of housing duty by one authority and a new application made to another housing authority.

Judges:

Karen Walden-Smith HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 24 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573236

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 interested onlooker in the eviction. The appeal failed.

Sir James Munby P FD, Briggs LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1266
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Minister of Health v Bellotti CA 1944
298 blocks of flats had been requisitioned to provide accommodation for persons evacuated from Gibraltar during the war. The evacuees occupied the various flats as licensees. They were given only one week’s notice terminating their licences.
Cited – Robson v Hallett CA 1967
A police officer had been impliedly invited onto land, and was asked to leave, but was then assaulted before he had chance to leave.
Held: The conviction was upheld.
There is an implied licence available to members of the public on . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572414

Birmingham City Council v Wilson: CA 17 Nov 2016

The case concerns the extent of a housing authority’s duty of inquiry, in light of the public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, into whether an applicant for homelessness assistance has a disability requiring special arrangements to be made.

Black, Beatson, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1137
Bailii
Housing Act 1996, Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales

Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571419

Abdulrahman, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon: Admn 28 Oct 2016

Application for judicial review of a decision by the London Borough of Hillingdon to decline to accept the Claimant’s application made under section 183 of the Housing Act 1996 for accommodation.

Neil Cameron QC
[2016] EWHC 2647 (Admin)
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 183
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570780

W v London Borough of Haringey: Misc 17 Feb 2016

Central London County Court – appeal by W under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision on review by the respondent local housing authority (‘Haringey’), upholding an earlier decision that he was not within a category of persons who are in ‘a priority need for accommodation’, as specified in s. 189(1) of the same Act.

[2016] EW Misc B20 (CC)
Bailii
Housing Act 19965 8204

Housing

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568930

Lee-Steere v Jennings: 1986

[1986] 30 HLR 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Paddington Churches Housing Association Ltd v Sharif CA 27-Jan-1997
The landlord had obtained a possession order against its secure tenant. The tenant had left to go to Egypt, and had been in arrears of rent. The tenancy obliged the tenant to occupy the prperty as his main residence. The landlord re-let the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.239721

Smajlaj, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest: Admn 26 May 2016

Claim for judicial review brought against the defendant, the London Borough of Waltham Forest alleging that, having concluded that the claimant was not a ‘priority need’, it failed to perform its duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, in particular to provide appropriate advice and assistance (s.192(2)) and accommodation in the exercise of its discretion (s.192(3)).

A Grubb DHCJ
[2016] EWHC 1240 (Admin)
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 192

Housing

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564908