Table of contents for Tolerated Trespassers
- Tolerated Trespassers – the aftermath
- Tolerated trespassers: A Luta Continua
- Postponing Possession. Are you now and have you always been a tenant?
- Assured trespassers?
- Assured tenant or trespasser? The waiting begins.
- Postponed assured trespassers verdict soon(ish).
- Permanent trespassers and enforceable possession orders.
- More on London & Quadrant v Ansell
- White v Knowsley – Court of Appeal Judgment
- Reincarnation of Tenancy?
- S.85 Application Randomness
- Permanent trespassers – a fan letter
- Post mortem revival of tenancy
- When does enforceability end?
For once we were well and truly beaten to the line in publicly announcing a judgment, and in this instance most deservedly so. At about 11 am at the Housing Law Conference Jan Luba QC announced the result of Knowsley HT v White, Honeyghan-Green v LB Islington & Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association  UKHL 70 and Garden Court had copies of the judgment available for the assembled multitudes of housing lawyers. I’m very grateful. I couldn’t get online to get a copy during the day.
So, after scanning the judgment during coffee breaks, and being defeated by my mobile dongle and lack of time in a very full day, here we finally are.
And what a result it is. Headlines tonight, arguments tomorrow:
1. Knowsley HT v White
Assured tenancies persist until enforcement of the order for possession – i.e. until eviction. Assured tenants under any form of suspended or outright possession order are not tolerated trespassers and never have been. (Obviously this doesn’t include summary possession where security of tenure has been lost).
2. Porter v Shepherds Bush HA
There is no such thing as an (ex-secure) entrenched trespasser anymore. Paying off the arrears and costs on a possession order does not mean that the tenant cannot apply to vary the possession order under s.85. Swindon v Aston was wrongly decided.
3.Honeygan-Green v LB Islington was rightly decided at the Court of Appeal. A tenant who served notice of right to buy before a suspended possession order was made has that original right to buy revive when the possession order is discharged.
There is a lot that is of interest in the judgment, including an intriguing apparently obiter suggestion of repairing duties to tolerated trespassers and a partial vindication of James Stark on Payne v Cooper (Hi James!). Expect a detailed post tomorrow evening.
Good conference, by the way, very good indeed, although I’m delighted to say there didn’t seem to be anything much raised that we haven’t at least mentioned here. But the thought and detail, my dears, the thought and detail.