Now, personally, I intend to chuck my kids out as soon as possible and return to “normal”. But, for Mrs Ariemuguvbe, this was not possible because her children were subject to immigration status and had no recourse to public funds (no doubt, they didn’t want to leave either). The issue for the Court of Appeal in Ariemuguvbe v Islington LBC (for our discussion of the High Court decision, see here) was whether Islington should allocate Mrs Ariemuguvbe, her husband, her five children (aged 22, 24, 27, 29, 31) and three grandchildren (aged 11 months, 1 and 2) an appropriately sized property. They are currently living in a three bedroomed … Read the full post
Monthly Archive for December, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Rodriguez v (1) Minister of Housing (2) Housing Allocation Committee [2009] UKPC 52 is perhaps most remarkable for needing to get as far as the Privy Council before a sensible decision was made.
The second respondent was a statutory body responsible for the allocation of social housing in Gibraltar. It had an unwritten and unpublished policy that it would only grant joint tenancies to (a) married couples or (b) unmarried couples who lived together with a child of which they were both the biological parents. If you can see problems with this policy then you’re not alone.
The appellant was a tenant of the second respondent. She had been in … Read the full post
Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC (2009) CA (Civ Div) 15/12/2009 [only as Lawtel note so far]
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a s.202 appeal on the issue of what ‘violence’ in s.177(1) Housing Act 1996 meant. S.177(1) provides that it is not reasonable to remain in accommodation where the person has been subject to violence or the threat of violence.
Ms Y claimed that she had to abandon the family home with her children because of her husband’s abusive behaviour. She stated that, although her husband had not physically assaulted her, she had been subjected to emotional, psychological and financial abuse. Housnlow found that this was … Read the full post
The December Legal Action also has the annual housing repairs update. A big tip of the hat to Beatrice Prevatt.
We’ve covered most of the cases here, but there are some others that are well worth a mention…
Brunskill v Mulcahy [2009] EWCA Civ 686 (no link)
This was a claim under S.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for personal injury from a fall supposedly due to moss or slime on the front steps to the property. At first instance, presence of the moss was held not to be a breach of the landlord’s S.11 duties. The Claimant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal (or possibly the application for permission) … Read the full post
Aricioglu v Kaan Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, 16 October 2009.
The December 2009 Legal Action Housing Updates included this County Court claim for harassment and unlawful eviction.
Mr A rented a room in a shared house from Mr K for £75 per week in January 2009. He paid £150 deposit and £150 advance rent. He shortly thereafter lost his job and told Mr K that he could not pay his rent nd was not eligible for HB. Mr K gave him a week to find work, then a further week, after which he would have to get out. An LA tenancy relations officer informed Mr K by letter that … Read the full post
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others LRX/148/2008
One of the advantages (so we were told) of the Lands Tribunal moving to become the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was that members of the senior judiciary could be brought in for guest appearances, and so it is that we find Carnworth LJ (Senior President of Tribunals) sitting with Mr Rose FRICS, in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a case involving the consultation requirements in service charge cases.
If a landlord under a residential long lease wants to carry out works (or enter into contracts) in respect of which he will require leaseholders to contribute to via their service charges, then, … Read the full post
R (Garbet) v Circle 33 Housing Trust and another [2009] EWHC 3153 (Admin) [link is to a .doc] was discussed by us (via news reports in Inside Housing and on Radio 4) below. I asked for a transcript and, as if by magic, one was provided. I stand by my original view that this is actually a bit of a damp squib and certainly doesn’t give rise to any point of general importance (at least, in terms of law. I don’t dispute the factual importance to the Claimant). The more interesting points are the ones not (fully) argued but hinted at towards the end of the judgment . Anyway…
The … Read the full post
Recent Comments