Category Archives: Possession

All possession related posts

Spoiling the Broth

Blake and others v LB Waltham Forest [2014] EWHC  1027 (Admin) is a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to terminate a licence held by Christian Kitchen (the 3rd Claimant) to operate its soup kitchen out of the Mission Grove Car Park, Walthamstow, London, E17.

The soup kitchen has been providing hot meals and refreshments to local homeless people on a nightly basis for the past 25 years and it has occupied its current site for the last 20 years. The Council issued its decision to terminate the kitchen’s licence on 17/4/13 as part of its urban regeneration programme. There were also concerns that the site had become … Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers | | Leave a comment

Disrepair – counterclaims after possession order.

Here is an interesting prospect* (and a big tug of forelock to Beatrice Prevatt at Garden Court for the initial suggestion).  Can a counterclaim for disrepair be brought after a possession order is made?

Conventionally, we’ve thought that a counterclaim would have to be raised before a possession order, or the complex and fraught option of applying to set aside the possession order would have to be followed, even assuming there was actually any basis for such an application. But there appears to be a solid argument based on Court of Appeal precedent to suggest otherwise.

Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 496 [Read the full post

Also posted in assured-tenancy, Disrepair, FLW article, Housing law - All, secure-tenancy | | Tagged , | 16 Comments

Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me*

Gustovarac v Croatia App. No, 60223/09 is a game-changer of a case. A possession case in which the European Court of Human Rights seems to be saying you don’t need a proportionality assessment.

Now, as you’ll all know, there is a line of European Cases, starting with McCann v UK, taking in Zehentner v Austria and meandering through a range of Croatian cases (Blecic, Orlic, Cosic, etc – see generally, here), which have stated that:

the loss of one’s home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home.  Any person at risk of an interference of this magnitude should in principle

Read the full post

Also posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All | | 9 Comments

A game of forfeits

The flexible tenancy, that marvellous and oxymoronic invention of the Localism Act, is now in place and in use by a number of Councils. The last time I considered flexible tenancies it was largely about how they were created and how they were terminated at the end of the fixed term (there was also this CPDCast. Which may or may not still be free).

Now, given that they exist, and given that people will do things like get into arrears or cause a bit of a nuisance, before the end of their fixed term, it is time to have a look at how flexible tenancies can be ended during … Read the full post

Also posted in FLW article, Housing law - All, secure-tenancy | | Tagged | 2 Comments

Article 8 and the Private Sector

In one sense, the possession claim in Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC  645  (Chfollows a fairly predictable course. The Defendants were a group of activists who had set up camp on Barton Moss Lane, Manchester, in protest at the drilling program being undertaken by a company, Igas Energy plc. The Claimants had granted Igas a licence to drill on the land nearby and the protest was intended to deter the controversial fracking process which the activists feared would ensue.

The Claimants sought their eviction from the land and the Defendants argued that their eviction would be a disproportionate interference with their rights under Articles … Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers, Various (non-housing) | | Leave a comment

Housing and Human Rights Round-Up Pt 2

Pelipenko v Russia 16/1/14

We reported the ECtHR’s decision on the merits here. There now follows the Chamber’s decision on the claim for just satisfaction. The Applicants’ claim for the breaches of Art 6 and Art 8 broke down into 4 parts: 1. the purchase costs of a new flat (150K Euros); 2. the costs of maintenance and repair of their former accommodation (17K Euros); 3. temporary accommodation costs following eviction (3K Euros); 4. loss of belongings and ancillary costs (20K Euros); 5. non-pecuniary losses (170K Euros).

The Court noted that this was unlike other cases where the State had thwarted claims against private parties and where it was … Read the full post

Also posted in Housing law - All, Succession | | Leave a comment
css.php