Austin v London Borough of Southwark  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  1 WLR 1425 and Burrows v Brent London Borough Council  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
Word reaches us that LB Southwark v Austin (our report on the Court of Appeal here) has been given permission by the House of Lords (or Supreme Court as it will be).
It seems that the time of the tolerated trespasser troubling the Lords is not yet over, as the situation in Austin was not caught by the Housing and Regeneration Act. So one to watch out for.… Read the full post
It is official, orders signed and everything. As of today, 20 May 2009, Schedule 11 of the Housing & Regeneration Act is in force, save for paragraphs 3(3), 8(3) and 14(3), which we are arguing about below. Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2009. SI 2009/1261
Also in force today – The Housing (Replacement of Terminated Tenancies) (Successor Landlords) (England) Order 2009. SI 2009/1262
So, replacement tenancies all round, then.
[edit - now confirmed on the DCLG site.]
[Edit: The SIs are not available yet on Gov. sites. Robert Latham has kindly passed on printer’s copies of the SIs but these are, of course, not official. Download … Read the full post
Following on from our post yesterday (and from a personal conversation with Robert Latham of Doughty Street Chambers) we can shed a bit more light on the forthcoming commencement of Sch 11, Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Firstly, the successor landlord order has not changed from the draft, which can be found here. The final order will be online shortly – we hope!
Secondly, the Government will be publishing some guidance and other information here, at some stage on Wednesday.
Thirdly, the reforms will come into force in both England and Wales.
Finally- and as trailed yesterday – the Government will not be bringing paragraphs 3(3), 8(3) and … Read the full post
With grateful thanks to James Stark of Garden Court North and North West Housing Law Practitioners Group, we can pass on some news on the … Read the full post
Via a somewhat convoluted route, we have received news of a cautionary tale from Croydon. Consider it an illustration of the need to use conditional language when writing about something which is supposed to happen but which is outside of your control. It is also a story which may (see, that’s how you do it) have ramifications for Croydon Council’s tolerated trespassers.
Croydon v Kamal, 6CR24634, Croydon County Court 6 May 2009 was an application for stay of eviction on a breached suspended possession order made in 2006. Mr Kamal, via South West London Law Centres, made a rather unusual submission.
On 23 March Croydon had written to him. … Read the full post
We’ve been contacted by the solicitor for Mr Austin of Southwark v Austin. There is to be an application for permission to go to the House of Lords (or Supreme Court? depending on timing, I suppose). As part of this, they’re looking for indicators of the scale of the issue involved in the case.
So the request is:
Please would anyone who has, or has had, a possession case acting for an occupier who would have been a successor tenant if the deceased (ex) tenant had not been a tolerated trespasser at death, contact the solicitor for Mr Austin, Charlotte Collins at firstname.lastname@example.org (and I gather, the sooner the … Read the full post