HLPA almost live.

As an experiment, nearly live blogging from the HLPA AGM fell foul of having my mobile turned off. So this is ‘on the way home from HLPA’ blogging instead. Useful talks on Housing Benefit, particularly on the new Local Housing Allowance, in force from 7 April.

Also news that the draft Housing bill due for passage in the autumn contains retrospective provision that all tolerated trespassers still in occupation would gain `replacement` tenacies, and that the Courts would be given discretion to allow either landlord or tenant to claim on breaches of tenancy agreement during the retrospective period of trespasser status. So historic disrepair would be in! No word on RTB status though.

There was also a report on S v Floyd which means I have to go back over the judgment for another careful look. I may have missed something very important, according to Michael Paget.

About Giles Peaker

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts, and still is Nearly Legal on Google +.
Posted in Benefits, Housing law - All, secure-tenancy, Tolerated trespasser and tagged , , , .

0 Comments

  1. Yes, I thought the talks were very good, particularly the second one on recent cases. I don’t do much HB work but do find the whole area to be particularly interesting.

    One point did rather sadden me though. It was striking that there were so few “recent cases” from the High Court and Court of Appeal. Almost everything was at the Tribunal or Commissioner level. I know that HB cases have an internal appeal structure designed to keep these cases out of the higher courts, but I just had a worrying vision of the furture, where all our cases are decided by Tribunals, with no real oversight from the High Court or Court of Appeal. I find it hard to believe, for example, that the High Court (or Court of Appeal) would have come to the same conclusion as various of the Commissioners have. I’m thinking, in particular, of the case that Desmond cited on the issue of what constituted effective work.

    I’m afraid I had to leave before the end. What was said about Floyd?

  2. J

    In questions, Desmond Rutledge did make the point that by the very nature of the client’s situation, welfare and benefit cases are particularly hard to actually bring to the higher courts, but I agree on the worrying vision.

    Floyd has a whole new post, partly in response, directly after/above this one.

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.