Monthly Archive for May, 2009

Article 6, outsourced reviews and bias.

By NL on 31/05/2009. 0 Comments

The outsourcing of s.202 Housing Act 1996 reviews by local authorities to private, commercial bodies came under scrutiny in Charlotte Augustin v London Borough of Barnet, Central London County Court, 22 May 2009 (no report available online yet). There are a couple of Court of Appeal cases on the same issue coming up, so we will be revisiting it.

This was a s.204 appeal, heard by Mr Recorder Hollington QC, of a s.202 review decision, purportedly by Barnet, upholding their decision that an offer of temporary accommodation had been suitable. The s.202 decision was actually made by Mr Minos Perdios, the director of Housing Reviews Limited (HRL), a private … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , , , .

"Something of a mess"

By J on 29/05/2009. 1 Comment

We first noted Defence Estates v L and another [2009] EWHC 1049 (Admin) a few weeks ago and now the transcript is available.

The history

L was married to an army officer. He was a violent alcoholic who abused both his wife and their daughters. In 1989 he resigned following a court martial which found him guilty of ungentlemanly conduct. The Army then (in September 1989) – on compassionate grounds – arranged to house L and her two daughters in Leeds, where the children attended school.

The premises in Leeds were said to be temporary until L could secure housing from the local housing authority. In September 1990 the licence … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers and Possession. Tags: , , , .

Not interesting enough

By NL on 28/05/2009. 0 Comments

McKenzie, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2009] EWHC 1097 (Admin) was a Judicial Review initially brought on grounds that the local authority refused to provide the claimant with temporary accommodation following her notification by the hostel she was living in that she would not be able to remain once her baby was born. In fact she was served notice to quit for three months after her due date. The hostel accomodation meant sharing a bathroom with another, male, resident.

The claimant applied to the LA as homeless and was told she was not homeless. She then brought judicial review proceedings on the basis that … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , , .

Why bother in the first place?

By J on 25/05/2009. 0 Comments

Since the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, leaseholder owners of flats in certain categories of building have been able to “collectively enfranchise” and force the freeholder to convey the freehold of the building to a nominee purchaser, normally a company formed by the leaseholders for this purpose. One of the (many) weaknesses in the 1993 Act is that it is possible for an otherwise qualifying leaseholder to be excluded from the enfranchisement process by other leaseholders.

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was supposed to prevent this problem by creating the “Right to Enfranchise” company. In outline, any attempt to enfranchise would have to be … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Leasehold and shared ownership. Tags: , .

Straws in the wind

By chief on 22/05/2009. 2 Comments

Yesiloz v London Borough of Southwark [2009] EWCA Civ 415 was concerned with whether a Turkish asylum seeker was entitled to housing benefit.

Ms Yesiloz arrived in the UK in the late 1990s and claimed asylum.  She moved into premises in Camden and claimed HB on 11 April 2006.  Her claim was rejected on the ground that she did not have a right to reside in the UK.  In January 2007 an Appeal Tribunal held that she was entitled to HB, but the Social Security Commissioner allowed the local authority’s appeal in June 2008.  Ms Yesiloz then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In February 2008 she was granted exceptional … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .

And… relax

By NL on 21/05/2009. 0 Comments

After the rather pressured posts of the last few days, time for a quick tiptoe through the Nearly Legal search logs for the search terms that brought people here that, let me be honest, are beyond even our considerable collective power to answer:

law on rabbit infestations

Unless you live next door to an inadequately secured rabbit farm – in which case nuisance is your friend – I suspect that you’ll find that housing law is, well, limited on bunnys and a surfeit thereof.

secret ways to break assured shorthold tenancy agreements

Secret? The mind boggles. Ways to break an AST that nobody except a shadowy hidden cabal of tenancy … Read the full post

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy and Housing law - All. Tags: .

Child 'requires accommodation'

By NL on 21/05/2009. 5 Comments

R (G) v Southwark [2009] UKHL 26 was the appeal to the House of Lords of this Court of Appeal judgment. At issue was whether Southwark could effectively avoid its s.20 Children Act duty to accommodate a homeless child by referral to the Housing Department by way of application under Part VII Housing Act 1996. The earlier post gives the factual background, but briefly G was 17 when he approached Southwark Social Services, after being thrown out of his family home and sofa surfing with friends. Southwark assessed him as having primary needs in housing and education, and suggested referrals to the HPU and to other agencies, including social … Read the full post

Posted in Community care, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .
row of sheds footer image
5 pages