Comments on: Catching up - Disability Discrimination and possession http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/ The Joy of Housing Law Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:00:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: K http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-5512 K Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:43:03 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-5512 Hmm. I agree with Iqbal. In comparison to the standards of living with the rest of Europe in respect to property and comfortable living, the standards of living in London are absolutely shit. People are shoved like animals into tiny, pokey flats full of damp and disrepair where there in not room to swing a cat in. For what should tenants pay rent? For living in shitty flats that are affecting their health? Martin Hmm. I agree with Iqbal. In comparison to the standards of living with the rest of Europe in respect to property and comfortable living, the standards of living in London are absolutely shit. People are shoved like animals into tiny, pokey flats full of damp and disrepair where there in not room to swing a cat in. For what should tenants pay rent? For living in shitty flats that are affecting their health? Martin

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-5493 Nearly Legal Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:47:04 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-5493 Iqbal: I could cite you marx on the rentier class from memory, but in the meantime I wouldn't recommend withholding rent while waiting for the barricades to rise up. Iqbal: I could cite you marx on the rentier class from memory, but in the meantime I wouldn’t recommend withholding rent while waiting for the barricades to rise up.

]]> By: Iqbal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-5491 Iqbal Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:55:53 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-5491 Why should tenants pay rent? It is the tenants who physically live in the property and not the landlord of the property. There must be a revolution to overthrow the ruling class of property owners by giving property and land dwellers more rights than the rights of land owners. Why should tenants pay rent?

It is the tenants who physically live in the property and not the landlord of the property.

There must be a revolution to overthrow the ruling class of property owners by giving property and land dwellers more rights than the rights of land owners.

]]> By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3943 contact Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:44:34 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3943 J, I did have a look at this in the follow up post at http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/disability-and-tenancy-more-on-malcolm/ I agree that his status rests entirely on the lawfulness of the NTQ, which the majority found void - so a contractual tenancy is what remains. J,
I did have a look at this in the follow up post at
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/disability-and-tenancy-more-on-malcolm/
I agree that his status rests entirely on the lawfulness of the NTQ, which the majority found void - so a contractual tenancy is what remains.

]]> By: J http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3941 J Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:21:11 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3941 Re-reading this decision has got me thinking... did they actually leave him as a TT? Arden LJ and Longmore LJ both found that the service of the NTQ amounted to an act of discrimination and, accordingly, was void. If the NTQ was deemed not to be served, then couldn't it be said that the contractual tenancy remains in force, albeit that it is a non-secure contractual tenancy? If the contractual tenancy remains in force then s.11 LTA 1985 will apply. Mr Malcolm "just" lost the benefits that come with a secure tenancy, such as the right to buy, succession, assignment / mutual exchange (since he'll now fall outside the scope of Part VI HA 1996). Sorry to revisit this topic - I've only just discovered this blog and I'm working my way through it! Re-reading this decision has got me thinking… did they actually leave him as a TT? Arden LJ and Longmore LJ both found that the service of the NTQ amounted to an act of discrimination and, accordingly, was void. If the NTQ was deemed not to be served, then couldn’t it be said that the contractual tenancy remains in force, albeit that it is a non-secure contractual tenancy?

If the contractual tenancy remains in force then s.11 LTA 1985 will apply. Mr Malcolm “just” lost the benefits that come with a secure tenancy, such as the right to buy, succession, assignment / mutual exchange (since he’ll now fall outside the scope of Part VI HA 1996).

Sorry to revisit this topic - I’ve only just discovered this blog and I’m working my way through it!

]]> By: Disability and tenancy - More on Malcolm at Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3639 Disability and tenancy - More on Malcolm at Nearly Legal Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:52:19 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3639 [...] posted on Lewisham v Malcolm ten days ago. Since then a couple of commentors have raised issues and Tessa has posted on the implications of [...] [...] posted on Lewisham v Malcolm ten days ago. Since then a couple of commentors have raised issues and Tessa has posted on the implications of [...]

]]> By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3638 contact Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:52:18 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3638 Mr Malcolm's ongoing position is a grey area. I've done a follow up post on Lewisham v Malcolm, partly in response to Tessa Shepperson's blog post, which looks at his position as well. Mr Malcolm’s ongoing position is a grey area. I’ve done a follow up post on Lewisham v Malcolm, partly in response to Tessa Shepperson’s blog post, which looks at his position as well.

]]> By: William Flack http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3636 William Flack Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:01:02 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3636 Thank you for your post on this case and on the other areas of housing law. They are extremely useful. I followed your suggestion and read the judgment in full. I think that like Romano before it this is an extremely important judgment and has wide reaching implications for housing lawyers. I would expect for instance that it will be much harder for local authorities to find people intentionally homeless where it can be argued that they were suffering from a disability at the time when their act or omission occurred. I was disappointed that the Court of Appeal left Mr Malcolm as a tolerated trespasser. It is stated in the judgment that this is because those representing him did not raise the issue of reviving his tenancy which I suppose is fair enough. I would hope that he might succeed if he were to apply for the tenancy to be revived. If the Court of Appeal consider that he should not lose his home as a result of his disability I would have expected that he would not lose the status and rights which went with it. Thank you for your post on this case and on the other areas of housing law. They are extremely useful. I followed your suggestion and read the judgment in full. I think that like Romano before it this is an extremely important judgment and has wide reaching implications for housing lawyers. I would expect for instance that it will be much harder for local authorities to find people intentionally homeless where it can be argued that they were suffering from a disability at the time when their act or omission occurred.

I was disappointed that the Court of Appeal left Mr Malcolm as a tolerated trespasser. It is stated in the judgment that this is because those representing him did not raise the issue of reviving his tenancy which I suppose is fair enough. I would hope that he might succeed if he were to apply for the tenancy to be revived. If the Court of Appeal consider that he should not lose his home as a result of his disability I would have expected that he would not lose the status and rights which went with it.

]]> By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3595 contact Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:07:22 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3595 Short answer - No. Long answer - No, but there may be a defence if the reason for the non-payment of rent is related to the disability. It is still open for the landlord to plead justification in response to the defence, or the court to find that a possession order is reasonable in the circumstances (which this case LJ Arden suggests shuold be the same test). The discrimination has to be unlawful, and if it is justified, it is not unlawful. See para 54 of the judgment or para 59. I think that the above is right... Short answer - No.

Long answer - No, but there may be a defence if the reason for the non-payment of rent is related to the disability.

It is still open for the landlord to plead justification in response to the defence, or the court to find that a possession order is reasonable in the circumstances (which this case LJ Arden suggests shuold be the same test). The discrimination has to be unlawful, and if it is justified, it is not unlawful. See para 54 of the judgment or para 59.

I think that the above is right…

]]> By: Andrew Robinson http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/09/catching-up-disability-discrimination-and-possession/#comment-3590 Andrew Robinson Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:31:48 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/archives/289#comment-3590 Does this mean disabled tenants who do not pay their rent cannot be evicted? Does this mean disabled tenants who do not pay their rent cannot be evicted?

]]>