Mangion v Lewisham LBC only appears on lawtel as an ex tempore judgment on 11.12.08 so if somebody out there has a transcript/better note of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, that would be helpful to understand this decision. What appears to have happened is that Ms Mongian had alcohol and back problems. Lewisham found her not to have a priority need because the back problems were not severe enough to affect her mobility, and her alcohol problems were a result of “behaviour of choice”. On review, she submitted medical evidence from an assessment for incapacity benefit to the effect that she had moderate depression and that her “mental health problems … Read the full post
Monthly Archive for December, 2008
Page 2 of 4
In St Pancras & Humanist HA v Leonard [2008] EWCA Civ 1442, the Court of Appeal held that, although Mr Leonard had possession of the relevant property (a garage), he nevertheless was estopped from claiming a right by adverse possession against the Claimant. The case is interesting largely because of the way the CA deployed estoppel to defeat the claim despite Mr Leonard having the relevant intention to possess.
In brief, the facts were that Mr Leonard (described variously as a “seasoned squatter” and “a coloniser – maybe a closet coloniser”) and colleagues occupied a couple of properties owned by LB Camden and which they were going to demolish … Read the full post
Ackerman and another v Lay and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1428 (not on Bailli, but available via Lawtel)
The appellants/tenants were the leasehold owners of a building and the respondents were the freehold owners of the same. The building had been subdivided into five flats, one of which was occupied by the appellants.
In 2000, the appellant sought to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. This application failed on the grounds that that inter alia, the appellants were not qualifying tenants for the purposes of the 1993 Act.
In 2001, the appellants served a notice under s.42 of the … Read the full post
Reg 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 provides that if a reviewing officer on s.202 review considers:
that there is deficiency or irregularity in the original [s.184] decision, or the manner in which it was made, but is minded nonetheless to make a decision which is against the interests of the applicant on one or more issues [the reviewing officer shall] notify the applicant (a) that the reviewer is so minded and the reasons why; and (b) that the applicant, or someone acting on his behalf, may make representations to the reviewer orally or in writing or both orally and in writing.
So what … Read the full post
Doherty v Birmingham CC [2008] 3 WLR 636 left us all wondering about the form and limits of a challenge to summary possession proceedings. My attempt at smuggling proportionality into a public law defence settled, for instance -good for the client, rather frustrating for me.
But now we have Bedfordshire CC v Taylor & Ors [2008] EWCA 1316 to look foward to. This was an application for permission to appeal to the CoA that started as a defence in the County Court, on Article 8 grounds, to a claim for possession by the LA freeholder against trespassers (apparently on similar, but not identical, facts to Kay v Lambeth). The … Read the full post
In CDS Housing v Bellis [2008] EWCA Civ 1315, the Court of Appeal in a short judgment upheld a possession order made in favour of the Claimant housing association against Mr Bellis, a secure tenant, who suffered from serious delusions. Mr Bellis appears to have believed that “there was electro-magnetic radiation or something similar emanating from either the central heating or some other part of the electrical system of the flat” which lead him to damage the electric and gas installations in the property. The property was, therefore, in a dangerous situation and Mr Bellis had not removed his stuff from the flat to enable CDS to do the necessary … Read the full post
Table of contents for Tolerated Trespassers
- Tolerated Trespassers – the aftermath
- Tolerated trespassers: A Luta Continua
- Postponing Possession. Are you now and have you always been a tenant?
- Assured trespassers?
- Assured tenant or trespasser? The waiting begins.
- Postponed assured trespassers verdict soon(ish).
- Permanent trespassers and enforceable possession orders.
- More on London & Quadrant v Ansell
- White v Knowsley – Court of Appeal Judgment
- Reincarnation of Tenancy?
- S.85 Application Randomness
- Permanent trespassers – a fan letter
- Payne-less
- Post mortem revival of tenancy
- When does enforceability end?
Knowsley HT v White, Honeyghan-Green v LB Islington & Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association [2008] UKHL 70 - for anyone who hasn’t read it … Read the full post
Recent Comments