As First Tier Tribunal bedroom tax decisions go, this one is a corker. Glasgow FTT has decided that the Regulations as applied to a severely disabled woman who could not share a bedroom with her partner amounted to an unjustified breach of Article 14, read with Article 1 Protocol 1. The decision is here.
I need time to consider the decision properly and write it up, but the headline is that the FTT read the relevant regulation (B13(5)(a)) to read “(a) a couple (within the meaning of part 7 of the Act) (or one member of a couple who cannot share a bedroom because of severe disability) in order … Read the full post
The entrepreneurialisation of social housing over the last twenty years has led to a diversity in the types of shared ownership. Of course, the standard leasehold type (what in the old days was called DIYSO) predominates, but there are a multitude of other types. In Ker v Optima Community Association  EWCA Civ 579, the Court of Appeal had to deal with one of these other types in Optima’s claim for possession; but in quite odd circumstances for, by the time of the hearing of the appeal, Ms Ker had accepted that the property was unaffordable for her so that she had to give up possession. What was in issue … Read the full post
Salvesen and Riddell & Anor v. The Lord Advocate (Scotland)  UKSC 22
It is not common for us to cover Scots Law, or Agricultural Law, here. However, both mores are to be broken in the face of an interesting convention decision from the Supreme Court.
You will have to bear with me as the facts are complex. I promise to keep it simple. Scottish Agricultural tenants have historically had very substantial security of tenure along with very powerful succession rights. Much the same situation has existed in England too at times. This is said to be good for land husbandry but is equally a reflection of post-war … Read the full post
Thomas & Ors v Bridgend County Borough Council  EWCA Civ 862
This Court of Appeal case might be rather limited on its facts, but there are some broader issues and it is interesting. The appeal was of a preliminary issue, whether the Claimants’ claim under Article 1 Protocol 1 was viable. Art 8 was not relied upon.
Briefly, the appellants all own houses near to a new relief road in Brigend. They claimed compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, alleging depreciation in the value of their homes due to noise and other nuisance from the road. For the purposes of this appeal, such a depreciation … Read the full post
Ferreira v Portugal App No 41696/07 (21/12/2010) [Link is to judgment in French, the only available version. Update 4/5/2011 - link now works. Can't link properly to ECtHR site.]
We’re indebted to Legal Action’s ‘Recent Developments in housing law’ for this one, not least because the European Court of Human Rights judgment is only available in French, and my legal French is a bit insuffisant. The translation is welcome…
This is a very interesting judgment in respect of the Court’s attitude to Article 1 Protocol 1 rights, Article 8 rights, statute and margins of appreciation, albeit perhaps of no immediate application outside Portugal.
Mr & Mrs Ferreira held the … Read the full post