Issue 18 - 29th May 2006

Monday 29 May 2006

Share This Page

Email This Page

News

The eligibility rules for both homelessness and council housing allocation change this coming Thursday (1st June). The new regulations (and a useful separate explanatory memorandum) are available to download. Click Here to proceed.

The official court statistics for last year have just been published. They show a substantial increase in the number of possession claims started in the county courts (including a 48.7% increase in the number of mortgage possession claims). Judicial Statistics 2005 is available by Clicking Here

Cases

Bristol CC v Hassan & Glastonbury[2006] 23 May, CA, [2006] EWCA Civ 656. The council brought possession claims for rent arrears. The district judges granted 'suspended possession orders' in Form N28. The orders had the effect of terminating the tenancies. The Court of Appeal allowed the tenants' appeals. Where a judge grants a possession order but intends a tenant to keep their tenancy - provided that conditions as to rent and arrears are complied with - the order to make is a conditional postponed possession order. The judgment sets out a form of order that can be used for that purpose. Click Here to read the transcript:

R(M) v Slough BC [2006] 25 May, CA, [2006] EWCA Civ 655. The claimant was a destitute asylum seeker in need of accommodation. The issue was whether that should be provided by NASS or by the local social services authority. The Court of Appeal held that where, as here, there was a need for care and attention going beyond that which would otherwise be the 'ordinary' result of destitution, the council had to assist under National Assistance Act 1948 s21. Click Here to read the transcript.

Pirabakaran v Patel & Patel [2006] 26 May CA, [2006] EWCA Civ 685. The tenant was a shopkeeper. His lease was of a shop and the flat above it (in which he lived) and was a business tenancy within Landlord & Tenant Act 1954. When he fell behind with the rent the landlords sent in bailiffs who took possession of the shop and the lease was forfeit. The Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture was unlawful because the landlords had not obtained a prior court order as required by s2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Click Here to read the transcript

R(LH & MH) v Lambeth LBC [2006] 25 May, Admin Court, [2006] EWHC Admin 1190. This is another successful judicial review of an inadequate assessment made of the needs of a disabled child under the Children Act 1989 and the legislation relating to the needs of carers of disabled children. Click Here to read the transcript

Garden Court Chambers Seminars

14 June 2006 - Housing Allocations
5 July 2006 - Recent developments in disrepair
For more details Click Here

Coming Events

14 June 2006 - Defending Possession Proceedings
from LAG training: for more info Click Here
4 July 2006 - Housing Law: The Legal Update in York.
For more details Click Here

12 June 2006 - 'What future for Housing solicitors in the LSC's strategy 2006-2011' a public meeting in London.

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards