The council appealed against the acquittal of the defendants of offences under the 1977 Act. The occupiers were there under an informal temporary tenancy. The owners wished to move back in. The tenants had not left on the day appointed and on the day after the owners returned to find the house damaged and in a mess. The owners chose not to press charges, and the tenants after being intially refused entry to the house were let back in. On the same day. The magistrates found there was a licence only, and no tenancy and that the arrangement was an act of charity and a casual arrangement.
Held: No money had passed or was to pass between the parties as payment for occupation, and therefore the occupation was excluded from protection under the Act. Payments had been for the utilities only.
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 285
Statutes:
Protection from Eviction Act 1977
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norton v Knowles 1969
The court made the distinction between a mistaken belief as to the facts and a mistaken belief as to the law, pointing out that the latter ‘is, of course, not relevant or available as a ‘defence”. . .
Cited – Regina v Phekoo CACD 1981
The defendant was charged with doing acts calculated to interfere with the peace and comfort of residential occupiers so as to cause them to give up their occupation contrary to section 1(3)(a) of the 1977 Act. The defendant contended that he did . .
Cited – Bostock v Bryant 1990
When considering whether a payment has been paid by way of rent, the court looks to the explanation or reason for the payment, asking whether the payment is for exclusive use and occupation of the premises. In this case a payment by occupiers in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Crime
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.137230