Archive for the 'Introductory and Demoted tenancies' Category

Page 2 of 4

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 all in the detail – Pinnock part 2

By NL on 15/02/2011. 0 Comments

Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 6

As if to confirm that housing law is, well, complicated, there is a coda to the Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock, which has led to a supplementary judgment being handed down. This deals with what order should be made and costs.

The first problem was that the parties couldn’t agree on the consequential order from Pinnock 1 – as you’ll recall, Mr Pinnock’s appeal of the possession order made against his demoted tenancy failed. The initial possession order was made on 22 December 2008, with possession to be given by 12 January 2009. Notice of appeal was served … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and Tolerated trespasser.

Social housing reform “consultation”

By Dave on 22/11/2010. 23 Comments

The heavily trailed (eg here and here), “cataclysmic” consultation paper on social housing reforms has been published by CLG today.  There is much to digest and much will be left to individual PRPs and local authorities to work out.  The “consultation” is limited either to specific groups or to more specific issues without challenging the underlying rationales.  The Localism Bill, shortly to be introduced will carry the main proposed changes.   It also seems like there will be considerable residuary powers retained centrally and locally.  The executive summary of the paper (at pp 9-11) pretty much does the job if that’s all you read, but there are subtler effects and … Read the full post

Posted in Allocation, Assured Shorthold tenancy, assured-tenancy, FLW article, Homeless, Introductory and Demoted tenancies, Possession and Succession.

Brave New World or Same Old Story

By chief on 04/11/2010. 28 Comments

Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45 (Supreme Court pdf & BAILII links)

Whenever a battle weary group of housing lawyers gets together, conversation inevitably turns (after the routine complaints about the less congenial DJs) to the thorny issue of which is the most important housing law case of all. While bizarre to the outsider, this ritual actually takes the form of a Mornington Crescent-style game, in which the aim is to get to Street v Mountford before somebody plays Puhlhofer and ruins the whole thing. The route to get there varies, although it will normally take in Awua, Pereira, Runa Begum, Din v Wandsworth… Read the full post

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

Pinnock forthcoming…

By NL on 16/10/2010. 2 Comments

It appears that the Supreme Court judgment in Manchester CC v Pinnock is due to be handed down on 3 November. Anticipation runs wild, particularly to see what the response, if any, is to Kay v UK.… Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and Possession. Tags: , , , .

Five go to Mornington Crescent

By Dave on 05/04/2010. 9 Comments

[aka Three out of the Five go ever so slightly bonkers on the way to Mornington Crescent, and one of those three gets lost on the way]

On the Radio 4 show, I’m sorry I haven’t a clue, there is a game called Mornington Crescent, in which there are no rules and the outcome is irrelevant as the show is more important than the game.  It is a surreal game in which the winner is the first person to say “Mornington Crescent”.  I was reminded of that game when reading the five cases wrapped up in Salford City Council v Mullen [2010] EWCA Civ 336, which J termed “… Read the full post

Posted in ASB, FLW case note, Homeless, Introductory and Demoted tenancies, Licences and occupiers, Possession and Uncategorized.
row of sheds footer image
4 pages