Category Archives: FLW case note

Case notes for FLW syndication

Trouble out west

In O’Brien v Bristol CC [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin) [heard at the RCJ instead of in the Bristol admin court?  Not on Bailii yet but we have seen a transcript], a range of issues arose out of the council’s decision to seek and obtain a possession order of an unauthorised encampment below the M5 at Avonmouth.  The real aim of this judicial review, though, was not the possession order, but the council’s decision not to allow the O’Brien’s and their four caravans to return to the temporary transit site, which had available pitches.  The O’Briens had stayed at that temporary site for the allowable period (13 weeks) and had been … Read the full post

Also posted in FLW article, Homeless, Housing law - All | | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Mortgage possession defences

I can distinctly remember my university lectures on mortgages. Not the content – I don’t think I ever really understood that – but the “gap” that existed (and still exists) between the popular understanding of what a mortgage is and what, in law, it amounts to. In particular, I remember being amazed that a mortgage was, in effect, a right to immediate possession of the property, regardless of whether there was any default on the part of the borrower (the right to possession arises “before the ink is dry” as it was put in various cases).

That unqualified* right to possession has come to the fore again in Thakker v Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Mortgage possession | | 12 Comments

The UT Repays Again

Fallon v Wilson & Ors [2014] UKUT 0300 (LC)

The Upper Tribunal has again found itself considering the issue of Rent Repayment Orders and has provided some further enlightenment on its position after the case of Parker v Waller (which we wrote about here).

Background
Mr Fallon had been convicted of operating a property without an HMO licence and fined a, very modest, £585 with assorted costs and a contribution to the victims fund. Three of his five occupiers then made separate applications to the FTT(PC) (or “futpuc” if you prefer NL’s pronunciation) for RROs and the FTT then made an award to each applicant for 100% of the … Read the full post

Also posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, Housing law - All | | Tagged , | Leave a comment

In the garden of Eden

Lawtel had an interesting note on a permission to appeal case earlier this week – Mount Eden Land Ltd v Bolsover Investments Ltd (Ch.D, 20.6.14).

Mount Eden Land Ltd (also known as the Langham Estate) had the freehold of an office block. Bolsover Investments Ltd had the remainder of a 999 year lease (running from 1913, so, in practice, loads of time remaining). The lease did not prohibit residential use, but did contain a covenant against alterations without the consent of the landlord. By virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (s.19), that consent could not be unreasonably withheld.

Bolsover applied for consent to convert the building into 16 … Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Leasehold and shared ownership | | Leave a comment

The oxygen of publicity: Paratus and Moore Blatch LLP

Not strictly speaking a housing case, though it is a mortgage repossession matter. But when a High Court Judge orders that a ‘clear and repeated contempt of court should attract proper sanction in the form of publicity’, who are we to refuse to assist?

Paratus AMC Ltd v Lewis [2014] EWHC 1577 (Ch)

Mr Lewis had had his property repossessed and sold by Paratus, the mortgage lender. There was a substantial surplus in the sale price, although “Paratus was entitled to recoup out of the proceeds of sale of the Property, as covered by its security, the sums loaned to Mr Lewis, interest and costs associated with the realisation of … Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Mortgage possession | | Tagged | Leave a comment

Pregnancy and Worker Status

Saint Prix v SSWP Case C-507/12 must be one of the more obvious decisions of the CJEU in the sense that the outcome should have been apparent (although the rationale less so), but no less important because of that.  The question on reference from the UKSC was, in essence, whether somebody who becomes pregnant loses their worker status for the purposes of Article 7(1), Directive 2004/38/EC.  As one of my colleagues put it, the case is of “mild interest”.

Bearing in mind the significance of losing worker status, in terms of eligibility for homelessness assistance/allocation and the range of benefits, this is a question of some importance.  The outcome, which … Read the full post

Also posted in Benefits, Homeless, Housing law - All | | Tagged , | 2 Comments
css.php