Monthly Archives: May 2011

Not going quietly…

Posted on by
1

Or round 3 of Ms Pritchard’s refusal to give up her former property to the ‘We buy your right to buy home’ firm that had obtained possession.

Fineland Investments Limited v Pritchard (2011) Ch D 17/05/2011 [Note on Lawtel, unreported elsewhere]

Readers may recall the possession judgment, and the multi stranded (and multi partied) appeal of the without notice warrant of eviction, in both of which Ms P was unsuccessful. After having been evicted and failed in her application for re-entry, it appears that Ms P was not going to accept that as a conclusion. She, her son and two others had allegedly gained access to the property … Read the full post

Cleaning Up

Posted on by
Reply

You may recall, almost two years ago now, we reported on the case of Defence Estates v L [2009] EWHC 1049 (Admin), under the title “Something of a mess”. The title was a reference to a comment of Collins J during the course of discussions after his judgment that three House of Lords’ decisions (Qazi, Kay & Doherty) had “left the law frankly in something of a mess”. This comment was subsequently picked up Lord Neuberger in his keynote address to SHLA’s annual conference in 2009. It was Lord Neuberger who then attempted to clean up some of the mess when giving the judgment of the … Read the full post

You win some, you lose some

Posted on by
Reply

Oxford City Council v Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609

In which the Court of Appeal had to consider whether the homeless applicant had made himself intentionally homeless and whether he was in priority need.

Mr Bull separated from his wife in June 2009 and left the home, where she was a secure tenant of the local authority, and moved into a room in a shared house. After a couple of months their three children moved in with him into the shared house. Mr Bull’s landlord then gave him notice to quit. Upon an an application to Oxford as homeless, he and the children were given temporary accommodation. Oxford subsequently issued … Read the full post

Assuredly not an AST

Posted on by
Reply

Jasbir Kaur Kahlon v Andrew Isherwood [2011] EWCA Civ 602 (on Lawtel but not on BAILII yet)
UPDATE: Transcript now available on BAILII

Schedule 2A of the Housing Act 1988 was inserted by the Housing Act 1996 and supports s19A which was inserted by the same Act. S19A basically acts to make the AST the default tenancy under the Act while Schedule 2A lists a series of exceptions to the default position. Most crucially, for this case is the exception in paragraph 7 which states that a tenancy which was previously an Assured tenancy cannot be regranted as an AST unless a notice in a prescribed form had been served.… Read the full post

Getting Plastered

Posted on by
4

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554

Farewell to the Heygate 1At the risk of being mocked, or shunned, I must confess myself to be throughly excited. A Court of Appeal disrepair case! And on one of the great unknowns of disrepair liability to boot! Obviously, my wedding day 8 years ago counts as being more exciting, but that excepted… This is rarer than hen’s teeth, rarer even than a meaningful engagement with a consultation by the ConDems, so even if you don’t do disrepair cases, enjoy the scarcity value.

This was an appeal by the Claimant, the tenant Ms Grand, against the trial judgment awarding her £5,600 general damages for disrepair and breach … Read the full post