<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Assured trespassers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/</link>
	<description>The Joy of Housing Law</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: contact</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/#comment-2823</link>
		<dc:creator>contact</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/77#comment-2823</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the reminder. I'd picked this up. See &lt;a href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/162" rel="nofollow"&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;. Commentary as and when the judgement is handed down...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the reminder. I&#8217;d picked this up. See <a href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/162" rel="nofollow">this post</a>. Commentary as and when the judgement is handed down&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olamide Sanni</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/#comment-2818</link>
		<dc:creator>Olamide Sanni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/77#comment-2818</guid>
		<description>Whilst on the subject of whether the concept of "tolerated trespasser" applies to the assured tenancy regime,the case of Knowsley Housing Trust v Julie White will be heard in the Court of Appeal on 14th and 15th March 2007. 

I trust you will provide an interesting update. I look forward to it!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whilst on the subject of whether the concept of &#8220;tolerated trespasser&#8221; applies to the assured tenancy regime,the case of Knowsley Housing Trust v Julie White will be heard in the Court of Appeal on 14th and 15th March 2007. </p>
<p>I trust you will provide an interesting update. I look forward to it!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: contact</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/#comment-380</link>
		<dc:creator>contact</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/77#comment-380</guid>
		<description>Thanks

The big question is whether there are now (ex)assured tenants who are now 'innocent' tolerated trespassers, post Harlow v Hall, in the same way as thousands of secure tenants. Given the effects on repairing covenants and any other covenants in the tenancy agreement, this is a serious issue. It will surely be tested before long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks</p>
<p>The big question is whether there are now (ex)assured tenants who are now &#8216;innocent&#8217; tolerated trespassers, post Harlow v Hall, in the same way as thousands of secure tenants. Given the effects on repairing covenants and any other covenants in the tenancy agreement, this is a serious issue. It will surely be tested before long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: olamide sanni</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/10/assured-trespassers/#comment-378</link>
		<dc:creator>olamide sanni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/77#comment-378</guid>
		<description>Thank you for shedding some light on this. I quite agree with your suggestion that in the absence of specific guidance on this, the situation for assured tenants(save claims brought under mandatory grounds) is best treated as  secure tenants. In light of the unfettered discretion accorded to the courts, it is definitely a matter for the Judge when deciding whether to use the old form N28 or the new form N28A depending on the intended effects of the order.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for shedding some light on this. I quite agree with your suggestion that in the absence of specific guidance on this, the situation for assured tenants(save claims brought under mandatory grounds) is best treated as  secure tenants. In light of the unfettered discretion accorded to the courts, it is definitely a matter for the Judge when deciding whether to use the old form N28 or the new form N28A depending on the intended effects of the order.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
