2011 05 Housing

Wednesday 1 June 2011

Share This Page

Email This Page

R (Nassery) v Brent LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 539 (Ward, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ): the council had reached a rational conclusion that, whilst the claimant might require care and attention in the future on account of a deterioration in his fragile mental health, he did not have any current need for care and attention, for example in the form of care and attention protecting him from the risks associated with a future relapse, in particular because the claimant would be able seek medical help if in the future he required . The claimant conceded that counseling and psychotherapy were medical services and not care and attention. Click here for the transcript.

Hemans & Another v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC [2011] EWCA Civ 374 (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), Toulson LJ, Sullivan LJ): The Court held that by making a joint application for local authority housing, a wife had implicitly consented to her husband joining her in the property she currently occupied and the husband was not, therefore, homeless by virtue of not having a right to occupy that accommodation. However, it was not reasonable for the wife to continue to occupy those premises and a local authority's review decision to the contrary had to be quashed. Click here for transcript.

T Mahood v Irish Centre Housing LTD [2011] UKEAT 0228 10 2003 (Judge Serota QC, L Tinsley, B Warman): In the Employment Appeals Tribunal on allowing an appeal the Tribunal held an employer could not be vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by an agency worker unless that worker was found to be an employee by implication or if, when carrying out the discriminatory acts, he was exercising authority conferred by the employer and thereby acting as the employer's agent. Click here for transcript.

Bristol City Council v Aldford Two LLP [2011] UKUT 130 (LC) (The President, Mr Justice Warren): On dismissing an appeal the Tribunal held that where enforcement actions by local authorities were in issue following assessments of housing conditions under the Housing Act 2004, residential property tribunals should make their own assessments of the hazard and should not treat figures given for national averages as compelling. Whilst any such assessment should take account of those figures, it had to be reached in the light of the facts. Click here for transcript.

Isokonde Makisi v Birmingham City Council : Selam Yoseif v Birmingham City Council : Hussein Nagi v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 355 (Maurice Kay LJ, Rimer LJ, Etherton LJ): On allowing the appeal in part the Court of Appeal held that the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 reg.8(2) enabled applicants for reviews under s 202 Housing Act 1996 to require local authorities to hold an oral hearing. Click here for transcript.

Helena Partnership Ltd (Formerly Helena Housing Ltd) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2011] UKUT B12 (TCC) (Warren J, HHJ Alison McKenna): On dismissing an appeal the Upper Tribunal held that a registered social landlord had not been established for purposes that were exclusively charitable and was therefore not entitled to extend the charitable exemption from corporation tax under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.505 and s.506 to tax years pre-dating its registration as a charity. Click here for transcript.

Naseem Akthar v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 383 (Maurice Kay LJ, Rimer LJ, Etherton LJ): In dismissing the Appeal the Court of Appeal held that there was no justification for implying a duty on a local person, or to give reasons on a successful review of a decision that it had discharged its housing duty, as there was no decision amenable to review at those stages. No transcript yet available.

Goodwill SIP Ltd (2) Rossmore Hotel Ltd (3) Cedar Hotel Ltd (4) City Best Hotel Ltd (formerly Prithi Guest House Ltd) (5) Redbridge Hotel Ltd v Newham LBC [2011] EWHC 980 (QB) (Hickinbottom J): On dismissing the claim and counterclaim the Court held that a provider of temporary accommodation for local authority housing applicants was not entitled to recover the costs of accommodating individuals who had overstayed where that provider and the local authority had, when negotiating the terms of the relevant agreement, intended that accommodation was to continue to be provided on the basis of their previous agreement under which the local authority was not liable for such costs. Click here for transcript.

AS v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 463 (Jacob LJ, Wilson LJ, Etherton LJ): On allowing an appeal the Court of Appeal held that two self-contained flats were not accommodation available for the appellant to occupy "together with" her father within s 176 Housing Act 1996. On the ordinary use of language, the offer of two self-contained flats, not sharing any communal area, was not the provision of accommodation which the Claimant and her father were to occupy "together with" one another. They would be living close by each other, but separate from one another. That ordinary meaning of the legislative language was reflected in the wording of s.176(a) Housing Act 1996 which referred to a "person who normally resides with" the applicant as a family member. It seemed reasonable to suppose that concepts of occupation by the applicant "together with" another, and residence of the applicant "with" that other, were intended by Parliament to have a similar meaning and reflected the policy of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 to keep families together, (Din (Taj) v Wandsworth LBC [1983] 1 AC 657 HL). On any ordinary use of language, the residents of two self-contained flats, however close the flats were to one another, who did not share any communal living areas, could not be said to be residing "with" each other or in occupation of one or other or both of the flats "together with" each other. Click here for transcript.

R (on the application of TG) (Appellant) v Lambeth LBC (Respondent) & Shelter (Intervener) [2011] EWCA Civ 526 (Lord Neuberger (MR), Wilson LJ, Toulson LJ): On allowing the appeal the Court of Appeal held that where a child should have been accommodated under s 20 Children Act 1989 but had been accommodated under s 188 Housing Act 1996 due to the failure of a social worker to refer the child to children's services rather than the homeless persons unit, a declaration was granted that as from the child's 18th birthday he was a "former relevant child" for the purposes of s.23C(1) of the 1989 Act. Click here for transcript.

Oxford City Council v Darren Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609 (Pill LJ, Jackson LJ, Tomlinson LJ): On allowing an appeal the Court of Appeal held that residence in temporary accommodation provided by a local authority under the Housing Act 1996 s.188 could be taken into account when deciding if children resided with an applicant for priority need accommodation under s.189(1)(b) Housing Act 1996. Click here for transcript.

Windsor Housing Association v Hewitt (2011) (Longmore LJ, Aikens LJ, Elias LJ) 19/5/2011 On allowing an appeal the Court of Appeal held that where a landlord had been induced to grant an assured tenancy on a false basis, namely the tenant's assertion that she alone, it was entitled to possession under the Housing Act 1988 Sch.2 Part II. The issue of whether or not the tenant remembered making the representation was not relevant since she had never asserted that she had forgotten it. No transcript yet available.

Jasbir Kahlon v Andrew Isherwood [2011] EWCA Civ 602 (Rix LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ, Patten LJ): On allowing an appeal the Court of Appeal held that a schedule to a Tomlin order recording an agreement that a tenant would enter into an assured shorthold tenancy to replace an assured tenancy was not substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form of notice required by the Housing Act 1988 Sch.2A para.7(2)(a), and could not amount to notice given before a tenancy was entered into. Click here for transcript.

Gladehurst Propertied Ltd v Farid Hashemi (On behalf of himself and Matthew Johnson) [2011] EWCA Civ 604 (Carnwath LJ, Patten LJ, Baron J): On allowing an appeal the Court of Appeal held that the powers of the court to make an order under the Housing Act 2004 s.214(3), requiring repayment of a deposit to a tenant or requiring the landlord to pay the deposit into a designated account, and s.214(4) Housing Act 2004, requiring the landlord to pay three times the deposit amount to the tenant, were not exercisable once the tenancy had come to an end. Click here for transcript.

Karen Julie Potts v (1) Robert Densley (2) Shirley Elizabeth Pays [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) (Sharp J): In dismissing the appeal the court held that It was not appropriate to order a landlord to pay a tenant under section 214(4) Housing Act 2004 three times the deposit the landlord received had received, as the landlord had complied with the requirement to secure the deposit under s.213 prior to the hearing date of the s.214(4) application, albeit after the tenancy had ended, and therefore had a complete defence to the claim. Click here for transcript.

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554 (Thomas LJ, Llloyd LJ and Rimer LJ): The Appellant’s home was affected by extensive dampness and mould growth and she sought damages for disrepair. The trial judge disallowed a significant element of compensation as he held the dampness was largely condensation dampness arising from defective design. On appeal it was submitted that the damp wall and ceiling plaster was part of the structure and was in disrepair. The Court of Appeal expressly disapproved the rule in Irvine v Moran that, in residential accommodation, plaster was a mere decorative finish. The Court unanimously held that an obligation to repair "structure" covered plaster. The tenant's damages were increased accordingly. Click here for transcript.

Brighton & Hove CC v Alleyn & Others [2011] EW Misc 6 (CC) (Mr Recorder Luba QC): The defendants were travellers who had established an unauthorised encampment on council recreational land The defendants argued the decision to evict them had been taken unlawfully on public law grounds and disproportionate pursuant to Article 8. In a very useful judgment demonstrating how the cases of Pinnock and Powell should be applied in the County Court the court made a forthwith possession order. The Court held that there was no substance in the public law challenge and considering the factual circumstances, although Article 8 was engaged, the making of a possession order would not be disproportionate. Click here for transcript.

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

+ View more awards