It’s all in the detail – Pinnock part 2

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

Fair limit on damages for ex-TTs?

Chase v Islington LBC Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court 30/07/2010

This case is reported in the October 2010 ‘Recent Developments’ in Legal Action. It is an interesting case on the use of applications under Schedule 11, 21(3) Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to have a period of tolerated trespasser-hood treated as a continuous tenancy with the replacement tenancy given on 20 May 2009 under the H&RA. This is for the purposes of a disrepair claim including a period prior to 20 May 2009.

Ms C had been a tolerated trespasser from about Feb 2001 following possession proceedings for rent arrears. In 2010, she brought a claim for disrepair and for … Read the full post

Suspended possession orders and insolvency: request for info

We’ve been told that on 29 July 2010, the tenant appellant in Godfrey v A2 Dominion North Ltd was granted permission to appeal. Quite what permission has been given is less clear – our source says Court of Appeal, but the case was elsewhere listed as being before a High Court judge. Can anyone clear this up?

[Edit: confirmed by Hardwicke Chambers as being Court of Appeal, permission by Rimer LJ]

What is at issue is whether a suspended possession order should be made when the rent arrears have been included in a debt relief order pursuant to the Insolvency Act.

The tenant apparently argued that “a ‘remedy in regard … Read the full post

The quietus of the tolerated trespasser

Austin v London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28

It has been a long story for Mr Austin and a long, long, long story for the tolerated trespasser. But this Supreme Court judgment should be the last time the Supreme Court is troubled by the legacy of Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council [1987] 1 WLR 1425 and Burrows v Brent London Borough Council [1996] 1 WLR 1448. Further, it is, in many ways, an epitaph for the ‘anomalous’, ‘dubious’, ‘oxymoronic’ concept of the tolerated trespasser – and ‘all of this nonsense’ could have been avoided (quotes from Baroness Hale, on which more below). This is a judgment worth reading in … Read the full post

It's a confused world out there…

And for the new year, it seems an opportune moment to delve into the Nearly Legal search logs in a vaguely quixotic attempt to provide answers to some of the questions that brought people here. Alternatively, where this is not possible, we can stare in mute bewilderment at what was behind the question…

It is with the latter that we begin
tolata mother and daughter inheritance tax and succession with a will
Just how much can you stuff into one short question? And without giving us any idea what is actually going on?

rehousing on asthma grounds lambeth
I’m resisting the temptation to make the obvious joke about Asthma Grounds … Read the full post

Succession – the afterlife of the tolerated trespasser


R (Neville) v London Borough of Wandsworth [2009] EWHC 2405 (Admin) [not on Bailii yet]

This was a renewed application for permission for a Judicial Review of Wandsworth’s refusal of a discretionary succession.

Mr Neville had been living with his mother. Mrs Neville had a secure tenancy from Wandsworth from 1999. In April 2004, a suspended possession order was made against Mrs Neville, which stated that she was to give up possession on 12 May 2004, not to be enforced on conditions. Mrs Neville became a tolerated trespasser.

Mrs Neville died in January 2008. In April 2008 Wandsworth wrote to Mr Neville saying that he had no right to … Read the full post

Continuity of tenancy

London Borough of Lewisham -v- Litchmore. 2 October 2009, Bromley County Court

Since the beginning of replacement tenancies on May 2009, there have, rather surprisingly, not been any reports on cases involving the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 Schedule 11 s.21 – when the new tenancy and the original tenancy are to be treated as the same and continuous for the purposes of a relevant claim (for breach of tenancy condition or statutory duty). Now, we’ve heard about one such case.

For an ex-tolerated trespasser with, say, a disrepair claim extending back over the period prior to May 2009, there appear to be two routes to recovering tenancy for … Read the full post

HLPA Conference

The Housing Law Practitioners Association (“HLPA”) host their annual conference on December 15, 2009 at the Royal College of Surgeons, London. Details have just been released (with more to follow later in September) and can be found at

Highlights include:

(a) Richard Drabble QC giving the key note speech. Richard has had a very active year in the housing field having appeared in Manchester CC v Pinnock, R (Weaver) v L&Q, Hanoman v LB Southwark and Austin v LB Southwark;

(b) Jan Luba QC outlining the expected developments in housing law in 2010. Given that Jan’s work in Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond, Austin v LB SouthwarkRead the full post