A couple of quick notes
For landlords in Wales, Coastal Housing Group Ltd v Mitchell & Anor (2024) EWHC 2831 (Ch) is potentially a very big deal indeed. We will have a detailed note done before long, but in short, a two Judge High Court held that where tenancies had converted to contracts under Renting Homes (Wales) Act, where the contract included the relevant supplementary term, and where an EICR electrical safety certificate had not been given to the tenant by 15 December 2023, rent was not required to be paid until such time as it was, so as to certify the property was fit for human habitation.
The Judgment makes no finding on whether the tenants who had paid rent in these circumstances had a claim for its repayment. But it seems inevitable that such claims will be forthcoming. The case involved six housing associations (as parties or intervenors), as well as the Welsh government intervening. But extrapolated across housing associations, council landlords and potentially private landlords, there could be many millions of pounds at stake.
Rather less serious (with the exception of being very serious for Mr Aziz) is the judgment in Notting Hill Genesis v Aziz (2024) EWCC 15. This was a sentencing hearing for breach of injunction by Mr Aziz, in relatin to an NHG property and NHG housing officer. Counts of harassment resulted in seven week sentences, suspended for six months. But Mr Aziz was not there to hear this sentence.
Mr Aziz did attend. I understand he previously attended Court dressed as Santa Claus. Today he was dressed in what appeared to be a comedy version of barristers’ robes. Probably one can obtain the like on Amazon. He is not a member of the Bar, and I asked him to take 5 minutes to remove those items and come back into court. I pointed out that it appeared to me disrespectful and discourteous to the court process to appear dressed like that. He was being sentenced for breach of a court order. Had he remained, I could have explained that one of the important considerations is the extent to which he is likely to comply with court orders in the future. As it is, I question whether he has respect for the court process.
Note for readers, don’t try this yourselves. Mr Aziz may have been lucky.
para 27 of the Aziz judgement is troubling regarding mental capacity and whether any Order from the court has any effect.
Surely attending court dressed as Father Christmas or donning comedy barrister’s robes at contempt of court committal hearings must have raised alarm bells with DJ Daley about Mr A’s capacity.
The fact that the medical evidence was ambivalent about capacity because of A’s lack of engagement is not really indicative that A had capacity.
There had clearly been a previous hearing and judgment on the issue of capacity, And the court was also clearly alive to the issue. The medical evidence was apparently obtained by Mr A in support of his own contention that he lacked capacity. Failing to co-operate on your own report could, in the circumstances, clearly suggest tactics.
Doing stupid things at court is not solely the province of those lacking capacity.