NEW
HOUSING LAW CASES
Evesham and Pershore Housing Association Ltd v Werrett
20 April 2015
The association sought possession against the defendant tenant as a result of his anti-social behaviour. A possession order was made subject to conditions. A judge was satisfied that the conditions had been breached. A warrant was issued and the tenant sought to suspend it. An issue then arose as to whether the tenant had the mental capacity to conduct the proceedings. A judge decided he did. The Official Solicitor provided a further medical report about capacity but the judge refused to disturb his earlier decision. The High Court dismissed an appeal. The judge had made no error of jurisdiction or approach. For the judgment, click here
R (AM) v Havering LBC and Tower Hamlets LBC
17 April 2015
Tower Hamlets decided that the claimant had become homeless intentionally and gave him notice to leave his temporary accommodation. It notified its children's services department as required by Housing Act 1996 section 213A. That department began an assessment of the children's needs but discontinued it on appreciating that the temporary accommodation was in Havering. Havering at first contended that responsibility remained with Tower Hamlets and then that the children did not appear to be in need. The High Court decided that both councils had acted unlawfully. The needs of the children should have been assessed by Havering and accommodation for the family should have been continued by Tower Hamlets until the assessment had been concluded. For the judgment, click here For a fuller commentary, click here
Branwell v Valuation Office Agency
16 April 2015
The claimant owned a flat. She claimed that it had been badly affected by flooding, required extensive repairs and was uninhabitable. She no longer lived in it. She asked for it to be removed from the council tax register. The local valuation office refused the application and the claimant appealed to a valuation tribunal. It rejected the appeal, and an application for a review of its decision, as it was satisfied that the flat was suitable for occupation if a reasonable amount of repair was undertaken. The High Court dismissed an appeal. There had been no procedural unfairness, the tribunal had been entitled to reach its conclusion on the evidence and there had been no breach of the claimant's human rights. For the judgment, click here
Lincoln City Council v Bird
10 April 2015
The council appealed against the dismissal of its application for possession of one of its tenanted properties. The council had sought possession on the basis of Mr Bird's breaches of the tenancy agreement and his anti-social behaviour. It said that the judge was wrong in failing to order possession, notwithstanding that he found that Mr Bird had engaged in anti-social behaviour. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a conditional possession order. The neutral citation is [2015] EWHC 843 (QB) and the judgment is available on LAWTEL and WESTLAW.
R (Giwa) v Lewisham LBC
10 April 2015
The claimant, her husband and their three children were all in the UK unlawfully. When they became homeless, they were not eligible for social housing or homelessness assistance. The council decided that it did not need to provide for their housing needs under the Children Act 1989. It was not satisfied that the household was without resources and took into account that their prospects of getting leave to remain in the UK were hopeless. The High Court dismissed an application for an interim injunction in judicial review proceedings. There is no transcript of the judgment yet but the case is noted on LAWTEL and WESTLAW.
Nzolameso v City of Westminster
2 April 2015
The Supreme Court has handed-down its reserved reasons for allowing an appeal against a decision to provide temporary accommodation for a Westminster homeless family in Bletchley near Milton Keynes. For the full reasons, click here For a summary, click here For fuller commentary, click here
HCA Regulatory Judgement on Circle Anglia Limited
2 April 2015
The Homes & Communities Agency, the regulator of social housing in England, issued this regulatory judgement following an assessment that the repairs service this social landlord was providing to tenants in the London area covering 13,000 homes (Circle 33 and Old Ford Housing Association) represented a chronic failure to ensure delivery of a satisfactory repair service. For example, in relation to Circle 33's 8,000 homes, over a period of three months Circle reported that less than 20% of urgent and emergency repairs were completed on time and elsewhere less than 50%. Referrals received by the regulator, including information about a significant number of outstanding statutory notices relating to disrepair, provided evidence that for over a year tenants, including vulnerable tenants, had experienced significant difficulties in getting essential repairs done, either on time or at all. For a copy of the judgement, click here
Darby (Administratrix) v Richmond Upon Thames LBC [aka Re Rabbetts (Deceased)]
1 April 2015
Mr Rabbetts applied for social housing. His GP wrote that his health was at risk while he was sharing accommodation with others. A consultant haematologist explained that it would be disastrous if he was to pick up an infection from them. A health visitor wrote repeating the request for re-housing. The council awarded 50 medical priority points. Its scheme allowed 200 points where there was a life-threatening condition. Those with whom he lived developed infections. They were passed on to Mr Rabbetts who died from influenza. The High Court struck-out a claim for negligent handling of the social housing application because the council did not owe a duty of care. The judgment has the neutral citation [2015] EWHC 909 (QB) and is available on LAWTEL and WESTLAW. For a fuller commentary, click here
Swift 1st Ltd v The Chief Land Registrar
1 April 2015
Mrs Rani owned a house and was on the land register as owner. In April 2006, a fraudster registered a charge against the title for a £32,000 loan in favour of GE Money. In May 2006, that loan was redeemed by Swift as part of another loan of £64,500. The charge in favour of Swift replaced that for GE Money. Both charges had been forgeries. Mrs Rani had not been involved and had received none of the money. Swift accepted that its charge had to be deleted from the register and that it had no enforceable security against the property. The Court of Appeal upheld an award of over £90,000 by way of indemnity against the Land Registrar. For the judgment, click here
West Midlands Fire Authority v Gurmeet Singh
1 April 2015
Fire broke out in a house let by the defendant landlord. There were no fire alarms or fire doors but there were 16 people living in nine rooms. The defendant pleaded guilty to eight charges of breaching fire safety regulations and a further offence of obstructing a fire inspector following the incident. At Leamington Crown Court he was sentenced to nine months' immediate imprisonment and ordered to pay £7,436 costs. For details of the prosecution, click here
R (Hardy) v Sandwell MBC (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust intervening)
30 March 2015
Mr Hardy and Mrs Hardy were council tenants. Both were in receipt of disability living allowance (DLA). They were deemed to be under-occupying and their housing benefit was reduced. They applied for discretionary hardship payments (DHPs) to make up the shortfall. The council took their DLA care component into account in calculating their income. The High Court held that to be unlawful and discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1. For the judgment, click here For the Z2K commentary, click here For the solicitors' commentary, click here
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service v Stuart De’Ath
25 March 2015
The defendant was a private landlord of three houses. Five fire safety offences were identified in relation to each of them, namely: no fire risk assessment; inadequate fire separation throughout all premises; inadequate means of giving warning in case of fire; inadequate provision of emergency lighting; and inadequate fire evacuation procedures. Other breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 included combustible materials on the means of escape and incorrect fastenings on a final exit door. At Blackpool Magistrates' Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to 18 offences. He was fined a total of £72,000, with costs of £8,700 and a victim surcharge of £120. For details of the prosecution, click here
Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Alan Lempriere
24 March 2015
The defendant was a private landlord. To inspect his property, council officers had had to enforce a warrant. They found that he was operating a house in multiple occupation without a licence; not carrying out gas or electrical safety checks; not complying with the council's requests for information about the property; not providing adequate smoke alarms or protected means of escaping from a fire; and not maintaining common areas affected by damp and mould. He was sentenced at Hammersmith Magistrates' Court to a fine of £20,000 with costs of £4,796 and a £120 victim surcharge. For details of the prosecution, click here
|