Comments on: A transcript, a transcript – my kingdom for a transcript

By: J

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:11:17 +0000

so I’ll do a full post this weekend.

By: NL

NL — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:18:20 +0000

Many thanks JH.

By: JH

JH — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:49:57 +0000

A copy of the transcript in MS Word is now available on the IH site – same link as above

By: JH

JH — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:19:06 +0000

Still no sign of a transcript anwywhere yet IH has replaced the original news article with a differing one (as it incorrectly named the wrong landlord) and this also contains some further information, but not much.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6507759

By: J

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:40:42 +0000

Mr Yarker, If you have a transcript, I'd be very grateful for a copy! Our contact details are here.

By: Vernon Yarker

Vernon Yarker — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:02:29 +0000

I am afraid that you are wrong in the assumption that it is a damp squib. This is not a one off case. Housing providers up and down the country have persistently made similar changes to Warden cover without consulting the residents. Yet, they are obliged to do so vide the HA 1985 and Housing Corporation Circular 05/07, which makes consultations mandatory.

Unless I read the transcript differently I don’t believe that Justice Mumby forbade it going to HRA, he just pointed out that it should not be necessary because it was unlikely that the outcome would be any different.

The outcome is very important from another aspect too. I don’t know if it is just the United Kingdom, but there seems to be an assumption by housing providers that they own and enforce contracts with residents. This is a lesson for them, long overdue

sincerely

Vernon J Yarker
Chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Association
http://www.shelteredhousinguk.com

By: J

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:53:59 +0000

Supportways was a bit of an odd case – a private law claim (breach of contract) where they sought a public law remedy (the quashing order). I remember reading the High Court judgment in the CCLR and just thinking “nooooo… this cannot be right.” I was glad to see the CA correct matters. It may be that someone took a similar point here but, without the transcript…

By: JH

JH — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:51:21 +0000

Transcript where art thou?

I too cant find it anywhere but would make one simple comment with regard to point (b) above.

A previous case Supportways vs Hampshire County Council may provide a different reason. The HC judgment ordered a public law remedy in a decree of specific performance – or to the council to go back and do the exercise again. That order (the remedy not the decision)was appealled and held by CoA that the HC judgment didnt have the power to award a public law remedy.

The original HC judgment did state that private law remedy – ie damages – was impossible to ascertain thus leaving the crazy situation where a council has acted unlawfully yet the law could not provide any remedy.

Im sure Mumby LJ had this case in mind when ‘disallowing’ the public law remedy (that was presumably sought) of making the landlord reinstate the resident warden.