|
NEW HOUSING CASES
Safin (Fursecroft) Ltd v The Estate of Dr Said Ahmed Said Badrig (Deceased)
10 July 2015
The landlord company brought a claim for forfeiture of a lease – and possession – based on arrears of rent and service charges. The tenant’s representatives applied for relief from forfeiture. The claim was compromised by a consent order which provided that the lease would not be forfeit if payment was made by a specified date (time being made ‘of the essence’). Payment was not made on time and the landlord sought a warrant for possession. The amount owing was then paid and application was made to extend the time allowed in the consent order. The judge granted the extension sought. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. The Civil Procedure Rules allowed time to be extended, even in a consent order where the time for payment was of the essence. For the judgment, click here
MVN v London Borough of Greenwich
10 July 2015
The claimant said that he was 15 years old. The council secured accommodation for him and provided support under the Children Act 1989. Later, it carried out an assessment which concluded that he was in fact 23 years old. The foster care placement was terminated and he was sent to adult hostel accommodation in the Midlands. On a judicial review, the High Court declared that the claimant was the age he had always claimed to be. The assessment was quashed. The judgment sets out important points of principle on the correct approach to the assessment of credibility in age dispute cases. For the judgment, click here
St Edmundsbury Borough Council v Oakley (aka Gaskin)
10 July 2015
In June 2013, the defendant had been granted planning permission for a singly gypsy caravan pitch. On 27 November 2014, seven caravans were at the property together with about 12 vehicles consisting of cars, vans, motor homes and horseboxes. On 17 December 2014, the council was granted an injunction to limit land use to the original grant of planning consent. The order was breached. The council applied to commit for contempt. The defendant accepted all of the allegations of contempt and apologised to the court for her mistakes. She admitted that she had done wrong and said that she was doing her hardest to sort the area out. A suspended sentence was imposed. For the judgment, click here
Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
8 July 2015
The council owed the applicant the main housing duty (Housing Act 1996 section 193) because she was a homeless refugee. It offered accommodation in performance of that duty. On viewing it, the applicant had a panic attack because its round windows reminded her of her prison cell. On review, the council decided that the offer was suitable and reasonable for the applicant to accept. A judge dismissed an appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected a second appeal. However objectively suitable offered accommodation might be, it needed to be reasonable for the particular applicant to accept it. The reviewing officer had applied that approach and had regard to the medical evidence. He had also been aware of the Equality Act 2010 and had considered the likely effect of the applicant’s disability on whether it was reasonable for her to accept the offer. There was no flaw in the decision. For the judgment, click here
R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council
8 July 2015
A young man had such disabilities that he lacked the capacity to decide where to live. As a child, a placement had been arranged for him in a local authority area. A further placement was then made, in a different area, when he reached adulthood. The last placement was made under the National Assistance Act. It provides that the authority responsible for a disabled person’s accommodation is the place where he is ‘ordinarily resident’ but that he does not become ordinarily resident in the area in which he is placed. The Children Act 1989 contains a similar provision in relation to placement of children. The Supreme Court (by a majority) decided that both the placements (when a child and when an adult) should be ignored and that the young man was ordinarily resident in the area he lived 13 years ago, before his first statutory placement out of district. For the judgment, click here
Health & Safety Executive v David Liptrott
7 July 2015
The defendant carried out building work commissioned by a homeowner. The work involved replacing a gas boiler but the defendant was not GasSafe registered. The work was poorly undertaken and led to leaking gas. At Ipswich Crown Court, the defendant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, suspended for 15 months and ordered to pay costs of £16,000 after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and one breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. He was also ordered to pay his victims £27,490 compensation within a period of 12 months or face a default sentence of 15 months imprisonment. For details of the prosecution, click here
Birmingham City Council v Amrik Singh Gill
6 July 2015
The defendant was the landlord of an HMO. Council officers found that he had failed to maintain any of the fire alarms or correctly display notices indicating the fire escape route. He had also failed to ensure that the water supply and drainage systems were working correctly (in that the soil and vent pipe in the kitchen was leaking). At Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to failing to apply for an HMO licence and of breaching HMO regulations. He was fined £3,000 for failing to obtain an HMO licence and £8,000 for multiple breaches of the HMO Management Regulations. Costs of £8,298.57 were ordered, with a victim surcharge of £120. For details of the prosecution, click here
Ealing Council v Evelyn Asirifi
26 June 2015
The defendant applied for council housing on the basis that her private rented accommodation was overcrowded. Council officers checked her account with other council’s housing departments and various other agencies. Responses disclosed that she held a social housing tenancy in Southwark and it was suspected that she was illegally subletting it. At Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty, she was fined a total of £400 for two offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and ordered to pay costs of £378 with a victim surcharge of £20. She has been removed from the Ealing housing register and the Southwark property has been recovered. For details of the prosecution, click here
Helena Partnerships Ltd v Brown
25 June 2015
Mr Brown was an assured tenant. In April 2014 his social landlord gave notice under Housing Act 1988 section 13(2) proposing a new rent of £77.65 in place of the previous rent of £72.87. He referred the notice to the First-tier Tribunal. It reduced the rent to £32.98.The landlord appealed, raising an issue as to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It said that the tenancy agreement provided an internal mechanism for rent increases and therefore the Tribunal had had no jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction could not be conferred by consent. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The landlord’s interpretation of its own tenancy agreement was misconceived. For the judgment, click here
Edozie v Barnet Homes
25 June 2015
The council carried out major works on one of its housing estates with grant aid from the London Development Agency. It then sought to recover a share of the costs from the leaseholders on the estate by way of service charges. An issue arose as to whether the council had to abate the service charge by an element representing the grant aid. The Upper Tribunal held that no abatement was required. For the judgment, click here
Cardiff County Council v Gareth Williams
18 June 2015
In 2012, on a police raid of his council home, 36 cannabis plants were seized from a tenant together with associated growing equipment. He asserted personal use of the cannabis and was cautioned by the police, rather than prosecuted. In April 2013, the council was granted a possession order suspended until April 2015, conditional on the tenant abiding by all of the terms of the tenancy agreement, not just those that related to drugs. In November 2014, the council was granted an anti-social behaviour injunction. Later, it applied to commit for breach and the tenant applied to suspend a warrant for possession. The judge found that the tenant had anger management issues but was not ‘disabled’. In breach of the injunction (and the tenancy) he had committed nuisance and annoyance. The suspension of the warrant was refused and a suspended committal order made (21 days in prison). For the judgment, click here
Santander (UK) Plc v Parker
16 June 2015
The defendant defaulted on repayments of his mortgage. The bank obtained a possession order. The defendant applied for stay of enforcement which was refused. He said on appeal that he was prepared to issue a Promissory Note backed by the security of his wedding ring. The High Court rejected that appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal as being without foundation. For the judgment, click here
|