Apparently Wandsworth are very very unhappy with the Court of Appeal judgment in Wandsworth v Randall on underoccupation possessions via ground 16 HA 1985. So unhappy that they are lobbying Caroline Flint to change the law via the Housing and Regeneration bill.
There are, of course, extremely good policy reasons for underoccupation possessions. Multiple bedroom council properties are in extremely short supply and demand is high.
Wandsworth, however, are putting more than a little spin on this. Martin Johnson, Cabinet member for housing said:
Our concern is the Court of Appeal judgement provides an incentive for underoccupying successor tenants to artificially increase their household as a way to defeat such
… Read the full post
The Court of Appeal has effectively given guidance on the application of Stack v. Dowden  UKHL 17 where one is faced with a transfer into joint ownership and no express statements as to shares in the property in Fowler v Barron  EWCA Civ 377 (23 April 2008).
To recapitulate, the important points decided by the House for the purpose of this appeal were as follows. The legal technique that the court will use to ascertain whether both joint owners who had been co-habitees had a beneficial interest is that of the common intention constructive test, rather than that of resulting trust. This will enable the
… Read the full post
Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington  EWCA Civ 363 (22 April 2008)
A quick note on this Court of Appeal case. What happens when a secure tenant who has begun the right to buy process subsequently has a suspended possession order made against them, and then later has the SPO discharged?
The Court of Appeal’s answer, following Enfield London Borough Council v. McKeon  1 WLR 1007 and Lambeth London Borough Council v. Rogers  32 HLR 361 and indeed Burrows v. Brent London Borough Council  1 WLR 1448, was that a revived tenancy brought with it retrospectively all of the rights of the tenant as if the … Read the full post
A Court of Appeal case, concerning eligiblity for housing assistance via EU status
London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim & Anor  EWCA Civ 386 (21 April 2008)
The facts are, briefly, Mrs Ibrahim is a Somali national, married to a Danish national. He came to the UK in 2002 and worked until 2003, when he claimed incapacity benefit to 2004. He was then declared fit. He didn’t take up work and left the UK shortly afterwards. he returned in December 2006 and remained without work.
Mrs Ibrahim and their four children joined Mr Ibrahim in the UK in Feb 2003. The children started school in Harrow and have remained … Read the full post
Manchester City Council v Moran & Richards v Ipswich Borough Council  EWCA Civ 378
This is a very important Court of Appeal judgment, which will have significant impact on Women’s Refuges and women fleeing domestic violence.
These were two appeals, conjoined, both featuring women whose stay at refuges had been ended following incidents and who faced findings of intentional homelessness on homeless applications as a result. The difference was that Moran had the decision as s.184 decision on application as homeless after leaving the refuge and the other, Richards, had been in the refuge after an application and acceptance of duty, with the refuge as temporary accommodation under s193 … Read the full post
London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison  EWCA Civ 354 is a Court of Appeal judgment on an appeal from a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal. It was made in downright odd circumstances, as the respondent had won the s.204 appeal but then had public funding withdrawn, for being out of the country, not long before the Court of Appeal heard Wandsworth’s appeal. The appeal went ahead, with the respondent not present or represented. Instead the Court had Counsel for the respondent’s early skeleton and asked Counsel for the applicant to give it the arguments the respondent might have made (!!).
I’m not going into detail on the facts of … Read the full post
Just a quick comment on Westminster CC v Boraliu  EWCA Civ 1339, which is not on Bailii yet. I was alerted by Housing View at Sweet & Maxwell.
This was Court of Appeal decision on the effect of Schedule 1, Housing Act 1985 on exclusions from otherwise secure tenancies.
The case concerned paragraph 4, which provides that a tenancy is not secure if it was granted in pursuance of any function under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996, and also paragraph 6, which provides that a tenancy is not secure if the dwelling-house has been leased to a landlord with vacant possession for use as temporary accommodation and the … Read the full post