Court of Protection Guidance: applications to the Court of Protection in relation to tenancy agreements (22 June 2011): if a person lacks the mental capacity to sign a tenancy agreement, and no deputy has been appointed, an application should be made to the Court of Protection for authority for a deputy to sign or terminate a tenancy agreement. Click here for the guidance.
Orlic v Croatia  ECHR 974. Mr Orlic had rented a flat from the Croatian government and occupied it with his family. In 2000 a domestic court found that the tenancy had been wrongly granted to him, he had no right to remain, and a possession order was made. In 2004 he was evicted. He complained to the European Court of Human Rights that he had been evicted without any of the domestic courts considering the proportionality of his eviction. The Court held that the flat was his "home" even though he had no legal right to occupy it and that because the national courts had only looked at the position in relation to rights of occupation under domestic law and not under Article 8 there had been an infringement of the right to respect for his home. It rejected an argument that the right to raise an Article 8 defence would disrupt the functioning of domestic legal systems. It also identified a duty on public authorities to give reasons for eviction by stating at para 69. Click here for transcript.
Wilkes & Wilkes v UK  ECHR 865. The applicants had been introductory tenants of Blackpool Council. Following allegations of anti-social behaviour, the council sought and obtained a possession order. The applicants sought a review but that was decided against them by the council. The applicants tried to advance a defence based on their Article 8 rights but their defence was struck out. They complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the possession proceedings violated their rights under Article 8 and that the review panel was not an impartial and independent tribunal as required by Article 6. Click here for transcript.
Birch & Others v UK  ECHR 866. The applicants had been assured shorthold tenants but their rights had ended on termination of their landlord's lease by the property owner, Central Bedfordshire Council. The council sought and obtained a possession order as the occupiers had no right to possession in domestic law The applicants had tried to advance a defence based on their Article 8 rights but the Court of Appeal held that that was barred by the decision in Lambeth LBC v Kay (see Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor  EWCA Civ 613). They complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the possession proceedings violated their rights under Article 8. Click here for transcript.
R (on the application of Tiller) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011) (Thirlwall J) 29/6/2011 Concerned housing and discrimination in respect of sheltered housing and 24 hour care services (awaiting transcript).
Crown Estate Commissioners v (1) Governors of the Peabody Trust (2) Margaret Poplak  EWHC 1467 (Ch) (Charles Hollander QC): The court held that on the proper construction of the Housing Act 1988 s.38(5) and the meaning of "public body" within s.38(5)(d), tenants holding residential tenancies became assured tenants rather than secure tenants following the transfer of the Crown Estate's reversionary interests in the tenancies to a housing association. (Awaiting transcript).