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. Wandsworth backed … Read the full post
Since our post on Barons Finance Limited, we’ve heard various things about the property and landlord related activities of Barons Finance and assorted other companies under the control of Dharam Prakash Gopee. As it appears that Mr Gopee has on at least one occasion continued to pursue proceedings (including appearing in the appeal permission in the last post) for Barons Finance Limited, despite the company having been wound up and a liquidator having been appointed by the Court, we hope this post might be of use for people acting for Defendants in possession proceedings, duty scheme advisers and hopefully members of the judiciary who are unaware of the relevant court decisions … Read the full post
People live in boats. In some cities, such as Cambridge and London, living in a houseboat may be an affordable way somewhere where house prices would otherwise make that impossible. On so slender thread as that we at nearly legal have reported a number of houseboat cases, even though the points in issue might seem to have more of a nautical than housing flavour.
Moore v British Waterways Board  EWCA Civ 73 certainly falls into that category, but it may raise a much more fundamental issue: what does “without lawful authority” mean?
Mr Moore “had care of” a number of houseboats, all occupied as homes, that were permanently … Read the full post
With the beginning of the bedroom tax looming up for April and upwards of 700,000 households affected, I’ve been thinking about the position when the inevitable rent arrears possessions start to appear – probably by about October – and also whether the statute itself is open to challenge.
A quick reminder – from April all working age social housing tenants (and from October 2013 some pensioners, when both members of a couple will need to be over state pension age to escape) will see a deduction of 14% of rent from their housing benefit (not 14% of housing benefit) if they are deemed to have one surplus bedroom, 25% for … Read the full post
Introductory tenancies require a notice under s.128 Housing Act 1996 to be served before possession proceedings. That notice
shall inform the tenant of his right to request a review of the landlord’s decision to seek an order for possession and of the time within which such a request must be made. [s.128(6)]
But in what form should that information be given? Does that affect the validity of the s.128 notice?
Some, but tantalisingly not all, of the issues are considered in a High Court appeal in
Wolverhampton City Council v Helen Shuttleworth. High Court Birmingham District Registry 27 November 2012 [not reported elsewhere. We have a transcript of judgment]
Ms … Read the full post
A rare Rent Act 1977 possession case, with possession sought as 'reasonably required' under Case 9 Of Schedule 15 of the 1977 Act via section 98(1).
Miles v Law  EWCA Civ 1756 [Transcript on Lexis. Not on Bailii yet]
This was a permission to appeal hearing, with Mr Law the appellant from a District Judge's first instance decision to grant Mr & Mrs Miles a possession order. Mr L had been the Rent Act tenant of the property for some 30 years. Mr & Mrs Miles sought possession to provide accommodation for their adult son and daughter. Section 98 (1) provides:
Subject to this Part of this Act, a
… Read the full post
This was a failed succession case where an article 8 proportionality defence was, at least in part successful. Our thanks to Legal Action ‘Recent Developments in Housing Law’ January 2013 for bringing it to our attention.
Affinity Sutton Homes Ltd v Cooper. Bromley County Court 17 October 2012
Mr Cooper senior was a secure tenant of Bromley LBC. Following a large scale transfer of Bromley’ stock to Affinity. Mr Cooper senior became an assured tenant. There was statutory right for succession by anyone other than a spouse. However, the tenancy agreement provided for a contractual succession for any family member residing with the tenant in the 12 months prior … Read the full post