Monthly Archive for February, 2010

Page 2 of 5

Missing letters, Reviews and Determinations of Civil Rights

By NL on 18/02/2010. 16 Comments

Tomlinson & Ors v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8

This is the Supreme Court judgment on the appeal from the Court of Appeal of what was then called Ali & Ibrahim v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA 1228 [our report here]. At issue was whether the Housing Act 1996 s.202 review and s.204 appeal to the County Court procedure was compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Or pace Lord Hope:

i) Does an appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act involve the determination of a “civil right” for the purposes of article 6(1) either generally or in cases such as the … Read the full post

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

Perhaps you should get a move on?

By J on 17/02/2010. 0 Comments

R (Joseph) v LB Newham [2009] EWHC 2983 (Admin)

We noted the permission decision in this case back in September 2009 when I expressed the view that, if Newham lost this case then some fish-based humiliation was due to them. Well, the claim for judicial review has now been allowed and I stand by my view. A woeful display by LB Newham, I think you’ll all agree.

Mr Joseph was the secure tenant of LB Newham in a one-bed property and had been since 1992. The property was now severely overcrowded, as he lived there with his wife and two children. Under the terms of the allocation scheme, he was … Read the full post

Posted in Allocation, Housing law - All and Uncategorized. Tags: , .

Tenancy Deposits: A retrospective

By Dave on 15/02/2010. 5 Comments

In advance of the brace of Court of Appeal hearings on the tenancy deposit scheme (TDS), contained in sections 212-4 and Schedule 10, Housing Act 2004, and after the High Court decision in Draycott & Draycott v Hannells (discussed with additional, important comments here), I have been spurred on to think about the original purpose of the TDS for two reasons: first, because it places the scheme in context (as Baroness Hale, in academic mode, said, “in law, context is everything”); and second, because it may be that, in finding its underlying purpose, we might also find the underlying meaning of the provisions.  I begin expansively and then narrow … Read the full post

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy and FLW article.

Self Insurance and Right to Buy leases

By NL on 14/02/2010. 0 Comments

Mihovilovic v Leicester CC [2010] UKUT 22 (LC)

Another Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) case. This was an appeal by the leaseholders of an LVT decision in respect of service and major works charges levied by Leicester City Council, the freeholder. There were three main issues in the appeal:

i) A charge for insurance of the building had been levied, but Leicester had not in fact obtained insurance, choosing to ‘self insure’. The LVT had found that Leicester could include a charge in respect of this self-insurance.

ii) The LVT had found that works to communal windows and to communal doors fell outside the s. 20(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Leasehold and shared ownership and right-to-buy. Tags: , .

Notification of Nothing

By David Smith on 14/02/2010. 0 Comments

LB Croydon v Shanahan [2010] EWCA Crim 98

Ms Shanahan was tried on three offences under section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. These were:

Count 1 between 24 June 2004 and 12 December 2006, she dishonestly failed to notify the London Borough of Croydon of a change in circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit, namely that she was in receipt of income through remunerative employment that commenced on or about 24 May 2004.

Count 2, similarly she failed to notify the London Borough of Croydon that she was in receipt of working tax credit from 28 May

… Read the full post

Posted in Benefits and FLW case note.

One for the surveyors…

By J on 14/02/2010. 0 Comments

Re Flat 3, 49-51 Cheval Place, London, SW7 1EW LRA/123/2009

Certain qualifying tenants of flats are, pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, entitled to acquire an extended lease of their flat in exchange for a statutorily calculated premium. In addition, the leaseholder is required to pay the landlord’s costs of, inter alia, the valuation of the tenants flat

This Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) appeal involved abortive proceedings for an extended lease. The surveyors for the landlord had charged a fixed fee for each ‘stage’ of the work, which the landlord had then paid.

The LVT did not allow the fixed fee but allowed … Read the full post

Posted in Uncategorized.

(Not so) Restrictive Covenants

By David Smith on 13/02/2010. 0 Comments

Flowers, Re 30 Burges Road [2010] UKUT 23 (LC)

The Lands Tribunal, or the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) as we should now refer to it, has recently ruled on an interesting restrictive covenants issue.

Ms Flowers is the owner of a freehold house on the Thorpe Bay Estate in Southend. She holds as a successor in title from the Woods who originally purchased from the Thorpe Bay Estate Company itself. The original transfer included an interpretation clause stating:

In this Transfer unless the context otherwise requires ‘the Vendor’ includes its assigns and the owners for the time being of the Thorpe Bay Estate aforesaid …

It also includes a number … Read the full post

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