Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Page 2 of 10

I watch the ripples change their size

…. with the words of Mr David Bowie ringing in my ears, I bring you a decison of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) all about changes and how and when to make them. In Re: 167 Kingshurst Road [2012] UKUT 4 (LC), the Upper Tribunal was dealing with an appeal against a decision of the Midland LVT  in a case under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. As you’ll know, the 1967 Act lets certain long leaseholders of houses either acquire the freehold or purchase an extended lease. In the present case, the LVT determined that the price payable for the freehold purchase would be £10,878.

The landlord was dissatisfied with … Read the full post

Let’s all move to … Wales

We have previously commented on various housing and homelessness developments in Wales.  These have been individual interventions into homelessness and the legislative competence order giving legislative housing powers to the Assembly.  Moves are now afoot to do something radical with housing.  In December 2011, Huw Lewis, the Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage, published a wide-ranging and quite personal vision for the future of housing policy in Wales: Meeting the Housing Challenge: Building a Consensus for Action.  It is both thoughtful and thought-provoking, but without much detail (yet).  Views are sought by 17.02.2012 by email to housingministerialstatement@wales.gsi.gov.uk.  It looks like housing policy in Wales may well be moving … Read the full post

When Age is Not Just a Number

Regular readers may have noted that these pages have been quiet on the subject of age assessments and the entitlement to services under the Children Act 1989. The fact-finding hearing in The Queen (KN) v LB Barnet [2011] EWHC 2019 (Admin) was heard as long ago as July 2011 but it is worth underlining here as an example of the way the Administrative Court deals with age assessments in the light of the guidance given by the Supreme Court in A v Croydon.

KN was the victim of sexual abuse in her home country, the Democratic Republic of Congo and she was later smuggled to the UK, where the abuse … Read the full post

Estoppel and s.2 – will we find out?

In the Summer Dave and David Smith posted about the case of Kinnear v Whittaker in the High Court. Bean J allowed an appeal against the summary disposal of a possession claim where the defendant had raised proprietary estoppel as a defence. This interesting and important question about the interaction between estoppel and s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 was therefore put off until trial.

The claimants appear to have been too excited to wait until then (or, more likely, but less poetically, they wanted to avoid the expense of a trial) and so appealed to the Court of Appeal. On Wednesday Stanley Burnton LJ refused Read the full post

Transfers and allocations: Pt 2 (a footnote)

We reported on the interesting High Court decision in Babakandi v Westminster CC [2011] EWHC 1756 (Admin) (a post-Ahmad  challenge to Westminster’s housing allocation scheme) and made a few observations of our own on the judgment, most notably regarding the transparency of allocations schemes.  Mr Babakandi had a go at appealing that decision, but was refused permission by Sullivan LJ after an oral application: [2011] EWCA Civ 1397.  The refusal is unfortunate given the uncertainty we have previously noted about the required degree of specificity in allocations schemes (which may well become even more significant, I guess, after the Localism Act comes into force, but that’s just a thought).  … Read the full post

Job Ad

Osbornes Solicitors

Solicitor (1-3 PQE) required to work in a busy Housing Department for a firm in Camden Town. Apply with CV to Shilpa Mathuradas, Osbornes, Livery House, 9 Pratt Street, London NW1 OAE (email: shilpamathuradas@osbornes.net)

Closing date: 8th December 2011… Read the full post

Jones v Kernott: The Headline

I’ve got parental duty so can’t do a full note on Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 now.  The headlines, though, are:

(a) Ms Jones won the appeal so that her 90% share in the disputed property was re-instated;

(b) the UKSC agree on the outcome but there is disagreement on the principles (esp Lord Wilson with Lord Kerr somewhere between);

(c) the majority, in essence, follow Stack but, it might be said, with a slight change of emphasis or, more politely, with more explanation about inferring/imputing shares;

(d) Lord Walker and Baroness Hale, who gave a joint judgment, engage with academic commentary on Stack.  The key paragraph in … Read the full post



row of sheds footer image
10 pages