Monthly Archive for February, 2011

Tenancy Deposits in the Localism Bill?

By David Smith on 28/02/2011. 2 Comments

A brief note to highlight some unexpected amendments that have been tabled to the Localism Bill. The latest marshalled list includes new sections which are designed to make amendments to the Housing Act 2004 and specifically to the tenancy deposit protection provisions.

The changes dispose of the unclear concept of ‘initial requirements’ and remove the late protection loophole revealed by cases such as Draycott v Hannells and Tiensia v Univeresal Estates. They also remove the loophole utilised by some landlords of returning the deposit to the tenant and then asserting that s214(4) only requires that they pay the three times penalty if they have also been ordered to pay … Read the full post

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, Deposits, FLW article and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .

Potemkin Villages*

By NL on 28/02/2011. 5 Comments

Westminster Council have long had a problem with homelessness. I’m sure you will recall the Westminster Council’s housing leader’s letters to Grant Shapps of last year, imploring him to let them discharge duty by offering an out of borough private tenancy. Then there was Westminster’s prediction that homelessness from private accommodation would double as a result of the coalition’s housing benefit proposals.

Now Westminster have come up with a rather different solution to the problem of street homelessness and rough sleeping. Under a proposal now out for consultation, Westminster intend to ban it. Draft bye laws ban ‘lying down’, ‘sleeping’ and ‘depositing bedding’ in an area of Westminster around … Read the full post

Posted in FLW article, Homeless and Housing law - All.

Size doesn’t matter (again)

By J on 27/02/2011. 0 Comments

We noted Craftrule Ltd v 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd when it was in the High Court (see our note, here). I won’t repeat our earlier note – it’s basically about what it means to be a “self-contained part of a building” under s.3, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement; though it’s also relevant for those doing Right to Manage work under s.72, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002). The Court of Appeal has now upheld the decision of the High Ct ([2011] EWCA Civ 185). There is no requirement that the smallest possible “part of a building” be enfranchised, so, … Read the full post

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

You gotta have an opinion

By chief on 24/02/2011. 24 Comments

Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8

[This is probably a work in progress. There may be further additions and comments as people get a chance/have a brainwave. We've also ended up writing this as something of a tag team. Chief did most of it and starts us off.]

Sometime ago Dave opened the door to Tarantino references in relation to the vexed issue of Art.8 of the ECHR and possession proceedings. In his post on Zehentner v Austria he pointed out that, just as American hitmen consider that European fast food chains do certain things rather differently, so the appellate courts in England and … Read the full post

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

Hounslow v Powell newsflash

By NL on 23/02/2011. 3 Comments

The judgment in London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 (Aka, Powell, Hall and Frisby) is out. We have a detailed post coming shortly on this significant judgment on proportionality defences after Pinnock, but for now, the headlines are:

Introductory tenancies – These are caught  under the proportionality defence. S.127(2) Housing Act 1996 to be read accordingly.

Section 89 Housing Act 1980 – A court can’t make a possession order that defers possession for longer than the maximum period permitted under s.89, even if it considers it would be proportionate to do so. The Supreme Court declines to make a declaration of incompatibility in respect of S.89. There … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless, Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and Possession.

It’s not how long it is…

By NL on 22/02/2011. 14 Comments

…but what you do at the end of it that counts*

FMB (EEA reg 6(2)(a) – ‘temporarily unable to work’) Uganda [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC)

The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (Upper Chamber) is not our usual stamping ground, but this is a decision which has considerable broader significance for housing and benefit eligibility. It dates from November 2010, but we’ve just come across it. At issue was the meaning of Regulation 6(2)(a) Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which hold that an EEA worker does not cease to be treated as worker (and hence lose the right to reside and benefit/housing eligibility) if:

that the person “is temporarily unable to

… Read the full post

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

Well I do declare

By NL on 21/02/2011. 5 Comments

Hat tip to Christian at the Estates Gazette Law blog for this one.

Crown Estates are to sell their London ‘social’ residential estates to Peabody Trust. It appears that they are now urgently seeking a tenant to bring forward a test case for a declaration in the High Court as to the effect of sections 35(5) and 38(1)&(3) of the 1988 Housing Act on its 320 Rent Act regulated tenants on transfer.

The Commissioners of the Crown Estates believe that the upshot would be that the protected tenants become secure tenants, while tenants groups said they had advice that the result would be assured tenancies. While Peabody had covenanted to … Read the full post

Posted in assured-tenancy, FLW article, Housing law - All and secure-tenancy. Tags: , , .
row of sheds footer image
3 pages