- Adverse possession(16)
- Community care(62)
- Housing law – All(1299)
- Mortgage possession(62)
- Tolerated trespasser(49)
- Trusts and Estoppel(42)
- Various (non-housing)(439)
- Feed aggregator | Landlord Law on Gopee & Barons Finance. Return of the Mackie QC
- News – housing law practitioners association on Trouble out west
- News – housing law practitioners association on Ghopee. Hopeless.
- Get the Affordable L on When is an insurance premium reasonably incurred?
- Trouble out west – NearlyLegal | Current Awareness on Trouble out west
- Giles Peaker on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- William Noad on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- DavBag on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Bill Heywood on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- CJ on Trouble out west
Visits in 2014279056
Category Archives: ASB
Swan v Gill  EWCA Civ 1566 apparently attracted quite a bit of attention at the HLPA conference this year, the general consensus being that the Court of Appeal was wrong in its approach to s.149 Equality Act 2010 and I’m inclined to agree.
Mr Gill, an assured tenant, had taken over the communal areas and gardens next to his property, putting up a greenhouse, gazebo etc. In June 2011, in an attempt to stop this, the association applied for an anti-social behaviour injunction (ASBI) against him under ss.153A and 153D Housing Act 1996. The application took two years to come on for trial (a decision to refuse to adjourn … Read the full post
3 cases have recently been decided by the ECtHR Chamber
The Applicant (B) complained to the Court under Arts 3 and 8 ECHR about the State’s failure to protect her and her two children under the provisions of Moldovan national law from domestic violence perpetrated against them over several years by B’s former husband, VB, when they failed to order his eviction from the flat which they occupied together.
The parties had divorced in 2007 but B was repeatedly beaten by VB after their divorce. B’s application to have VB evicted from the flat was heard by the Supreme Court on … Read the full post
OK, so the title of this post may be an exaggeration of what is only a passing reference to an old friend in Fareham BC v Miller  EWCA Civ 159. But it is interesting to see it used as part of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of an Article 8/proportionality judgement.
Mr Miller (M) held a non-secure tenancy of a flat with Fareham BC. M was a habitual offender and a long-standing heroin addict who spent his life in and out of prison. On 13/5/10 the council served a notice to quit because of rent arrears which were cleared very soon afterwards. However, by September 2010, it became clear … Read the full post
You may recall the discussion that took place on this blog of Wandsworth’s secure tenancy terms, introduced in 2009, that sought to introduce a list of things that the tenant, “lodgers, friends, relatives, visitors and any other person living in the property are not allowed to do whilst in the London Borough of Wandsworth”, including causing a nuisance to others, causing damage to property etc. etc. A full list of the terms is at the end of this post.
Our discussion was in the content of Wandsworth seeking to use this clause against the mother of an accused rioter for a possession claim under Ground 1 -breach of tenancy conditions. … Read the full post
Birmingham CC v Ashton is a case which illustrates the difficulty that judges face when they are invited to make possession orders on the grounds of nuisance and anti-social behaviour against tenants with mental health problems.
The Council relied on four incidents of ASB between 2004 and 2010, three of which involved Mr Ashton’s next-door neighbour, Ms Benton, and which included threats with a kitchen knife and the brandishing of a samurai sword outside the premises. Mr Ashton was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act. He was also convicted in the Crown Court on 11/10/10 of affray and of possession of an offensive weapon in connection with the samurai … Read the full post
A bit of a miscellany, with Government skullduggery and posturing galore.
First up, Grayling’s MoJ has announced a consultation into revising the rules on Judicial Review. Broadly, he is against it. Responses are due by 24 January 2013, so a busy holiday for the rest of us. Given the dubious inferences drawn from inadequate statistics, people really should respond. Our view from when the first announcement was made is here.
Next, the Home Office draft Anti-Social Behaviour bill is out (officially tomorrow 14/12/2012). The end of ASBOs and ASBIs, closure orders etc. but also the new mandatory ground of possession for breach of an ASB injunction, noise abatement order … Read the full post