NEW
HOUSING LAW CASES
Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
21 April 2015
The claimant and his wife were Romany gypsies living in a mobile home. They had been unable to find a space on local gypsy sites. They wanted their son to attend local schools and have the benefit of growing up in an area where there is a community of gypsies. They had tried living in a house, but they found it too claustrophobic. They applied to the local council for planning permission to live in their mobile home, and to use the bathroom and kitchen facilities in a newly-built adjacent utility/dayroom while also keeping a touring caravan on the site. The council refused permission and served an enforcement notice. A planning inspector dismissed appeals against both decisions. The High Court set aside the inspector’s decision because the relevant planning policies had been misapplied. For the judgment,click here
Begum v Birmingham City Council
20 April 2015
The claimant bought her council home under the right to buy. The council's documents had failed to give the required notice of a serious structural defect. The claimant was awarded damages (based on the cost of remedial works) for breach of the council's statutory duty to notify the defect but she was ordered to pay the costs of a failed claim for misrepresentation and negligence. In October 2014 the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the council for permission to appeal on liability. But it has now allowed the claimant's appeal against the adverse costs order. For the judgment, click here
ASA Adjudication on Hamptons Estates Ltd t/a Hamptons International
22 April 2015
A property listing on Hamptons’ website described the letting as "£1,200 per Calendar Month + £216 incl VAT admin fee per property + other fees may apply". The text "+ £216 incl VAT admin fee per property + other fees may apply" was hyperlinked to further details about related fees. A user complained to the advertising standards authority that the charges were unclear. The ASA upheld the complaint. It found that there were other non-optional fees that consumers would have to pay if they rented the property. These fees were a referencing charge and a check-in charge, which would be combined with the administrative charge into an all-inclusive fee (at the Bristol branch). For other branches, the referencing charge was one of two fixed prices depending on whether the consumer was a tenant or a business, and the check-in charge varied depending on the size of the property. The advert was misleading. For the full adjudication, click here
Wood v Kingston upon Hull City Council
15 April 2015
There was inadequate fire separation between two flats in an HMO. The council served an improvement notice. That led to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal which raised the question “Where inadequate material separation exists between two flats in a house in multiple occupation and risks the spread of fire between floors, who should be required to carry out necessary improvements: the owner of a flat on the first floor whose tenant is at risk, but who could only provide the required protection by expensive and disruptive improvements carried out from that flat, or the owner-occupier of the ground floor flat where the same level of protection could be provided by relatively inexpensive works?” For the answer, given by the judgment, click here
Wall v Information Commissioner
13 April 2015
The applicant made a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for the names – and other details recorded on court records – of landlords convicted of offences under the Housing Act 2004. The Information Commissioner upheld a decision by the MoJ to withhold the data on the grounds that disclosure would cause ‘harm and distress’ to those named. The Information Tribunal allowed an appeal and ordered disclosure. It was ‘satisfied that not only is the disclosure of this information in the substantial public interest, but also any reasonably informed data controller with knowledge of the social needs and the impact of such disclosure would so conclude.’ For the judgment, click here
Brent LBC v Douglas Gerard-Reynolds
14 April 2015
The defendant was a private landlord of a house which contained ten units of accommodation and was in a poor condition. Tenants had complained about inadequate heating facilities and water leaks and the landlord had failed to obtain an HMO licence. At Willesden Magistrates’ Court, the defendant was found guilty of renting an HMO without the required licence. He was fined £1,000, with costs of £1,457 and victim surcharge of £100. For details of the prosecution, click here
Botezatu v Republic of Moldova
14 April 2015
The applicant’s job qualified him for social housing. When the local council did not provide any, he took court proceedings and obtained a judgment ordering it to do so. When it failed to comply, he was awarded compensation for his injured feelings but not for the rent he was paying for alternative accommodation. He complained to the European Court of Human Rights. It found that the delay in enforcing the judgment and the inadequate compensation paid amounted to a breach of Article 6 and Article 1 Protocol 1. It awarded compensation relating to the amount of rent paid. For the judgment, click here For a commentary, click here
Medway Council v Dennis Sullivan
9 April 2015
The defendant was a private landlord. Following an inspection of his property, council officers served an improvement notice in respect of failure to provide sufficient heating and failure to provide a safe method of opening a skylight window. The defendant did not carry out the work. At Medway Magistrates’ court, he pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to comply with a notice under the Housing Act 2004 and was fined £1,500 with costs of £2,270 and a £100 victim surcharge. For details of the prosecution, click here
Happi v France
9 April 2015
The applicant lived in grossly unsatisfactory accommodation and applied for social housing. She obtained a judgment in December 2010 requiring that she be rehoused but it had not been fully enforced over three and a half years later (even though the French courts had indicated that her case had to be resolved with particular urgency). A fine imposed in that judgment had been enforced and paid by the local council but it had no compensatory function and was not paid to the applicant but to a state-run fund. The European Court of Human Rights found that the failure to enforce the judgment could not be justified by relying on lack of funds or other resources and that there had been a breach of Article 6. However, the court held that the right to social housing did not constitute a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 Protocol 1. For the judgment (in French) click here For an official summary (in English) click here For a commentary, click here
Huzrat v Hounslow LBC
31 March 2015
The Supreme Court has refused an application by Ms Huzrat for permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold a finding that she had become homeless intentionally. The appeal had been intended to focus on the importance of the interests of the children under Children Act 2004 section 11. For the Court of Appeal judgment, click here
Clark v Manchester CC
27 March 2015
The appellant was a private landlord operating an HMO. He carried out works to the house and asked the council to vary his licence to increase the permitted number of tenants from 5 to 6. The council refused on the grounds that a bedroom in the house did not meet minimum space requirements. A tribunal upheld the council’s decision but the Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal. The lower tribunal had failed to conduct a complete rehearing of the issue as to whether the licence should be varied but had simply confined itself to a review of the council’s decision. The judgment also considers the minimum size issue. For a copy, click here
Waaler v Hounslow LBC
24 March 2015
This was a dispute between a council and its leaseholders about service charges. It turned on the correct approach to the test contained in section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (which limits the payability of service charge costs by reference to whether those costs have been reasonably incurred and whether the service or works are of a reasonable standard).The Upper Tribunal decided on 26 January 2015 that the approach is different depending upon whether the costs relate to works of repair or works of improvement. The Tribunal recognised that the issue is one of significance and importance with a potentially wide impact and granted the council’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. For the judgment on that application, click here
|