‘We’re very late with this one for reasons which are no doubt entirely reasonable, but currently escape me. A judicial review of a refusal (or repeated refusal) to provide interim accommodation pending s.202 review.’
Nearly Legal, 19th December 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Health Secretary has ordered an investigation into how a grandmother living in sheltered housing suffered horrific injuries her family believes were the result of multiple rat bites.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th December 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Sam Madge-Wyld considers the Autumn Statement and its implications for housing.’
LAG Housing Law, 10th December 2015
Source: www.laghousinglaw.com
‘Andy Creer looks at the decision in Jewelcraft.’
New Law Journal, 11th December 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
Moorjani v Durban Estates Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1152; [2015] WLR (D) 509
‘In a case in which a residential tenant claimed to have suffered loss arising from the landlord’s breach of its repairing and insuring obligations, which had caused disrepair to his flat, the loss lay in the impairment of the amenity value of the tenant’s proprietary interest in the flat, and discomfort, inconvenience and distress were only symptoms.’
WLR Daily, 4th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Perhaps illustrating the need for the Court of Appeal to deliver the judgment in Moorjani (see preceding post), the December 2015 issue of Legal Action has Beatrice Prevatt’s excellent annual “housing repairs update”. We have covered many of the cases noted in the update already, but there are some county court cases unreported elsewhere, remarkably this time including some Councils taking cases to trial. As ever, our thanks to Beatrice Prevatt and Legal Action.’
Nearly Legal, 13th December 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘People will no longer have the right to live in their council home for life in future after ministers moved to impose a five-year limit on new tenancies.’
The Guardian, 9th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
West End Investments (Cowell Group) Ltd v Birchlea Ltd [2015] EWHC 3381 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 499
‘There must be a significant deviation from the vertical plane for the exception in section 2(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to apply.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The law of enfranchisement is very complicated. A whole industry has evolved to try to interpret the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) and the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) and put them into practice. The cost and frustration to leaseholders of such a convoluted process is considerable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Most landlord and tenant disputes end up in court. From the perspective of landlords, this can be a lengthy, frustrating, and costly process. For tenants, the experience is often uncertain, draining, and also costly. Is there a place for arbitration in this?’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th November 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The National Planning Policy Framework’s paragraph 17 lists 12 core land-use planning principles, including “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”. Within Green Belts its paragraph 89 lists six circumstances where the construction of new buildings is not inappropriate, including “… the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”. Its paragraph 111 states, “Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.”’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st December 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘While many practitioners are familiar with the general workings of lease renewals under the ’54 Act, there is one aspect of the law that is often overlooked: interim rent under sections 24A to D. Andy Creer takes a look at the law.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th November 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In cases involving social housing, English courts have traditionally taken what we might call a “managerial” approach: their starting-point for analysis has not been the tenant or applicant for housing as a rights-holder, but the need of local authorities to distribute their scarce resources effectively. In Burrows v Brent LBC [1996] 1 WLR 1448, for example, where a tenant who was permitted to remain after a possession order was held not to have been impliedly granted a new tenancy, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that “housing authorities try to conduct their housing functions as humane and reasonable landlords” (at 1455). The tenant might be forgiven for wondering why this should count against him, but clearly the implication is that as ‘humane and reasonable landlords’ local authorities should be left to manage their housing stock with as little interference from the courts as possible. More recently this attitude led to the courts’ extreme reluctance to enable a public sector tenant to rely on article 8 ECHR in possession proceedings. When the Supreme Court finally acceded to pressure from Strasbourg, it nevertheless drew the teeth from the human rights defence by agreeing with the Secretary of State’s submission that “a local authority’s aim in wanting possession should be a ‘given’ ” (Manchester CC v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6, per Lord Neuberger at [53]), so that “there will be no need, in the overwhelming majority of cases, for the local authority to explain and justify its reasons for seeking a possession order” (Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, per Lord Hope at [37]). The local authority is simply assumed to be acting in a way which benefits the general welfare; this assumption is then taken to justify the effect of its actions on individuals in all but the most extreme of cases.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th December 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Leasehold disputes, like any litigation, are capable of generating significant legal and other professional costs. The position is generally better for freeholders/third party managers than it is for leaseholders in that a well-drafted lease will usually give the landlord/manager a right to recover legal costs, often through a variety of different forms of covenant. These clauses can (and do) “trump” any procedural restrictions on the award of costs, see, e.g. Chaplair, but, of course, it is always a question of construction as to what the clause in question covers.’
Nearly Legal, 5th December 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘On 5 December, a Newham Council officer, together with police, seized a table from the regular Saturday street campaign of Focus E15 – the housing rights protest group. The seizure was stated to be under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.’
Nearly Legal, 6th December 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The risks of a client deciding to go it alone at the last stage of judicial review proceedings.’
Nearly Legal, 30th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Regina (Bokrosova) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 478
‘Whilst section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 did not refer to “consultation”, it created an obligation on landlord authorities to consult on matters of housing management and its purpose was, in part, to ensure the participation of tenants in decisions which would substantially affect their homes.’
WLR Daily, 24th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has ruled that a London borough’s decision to stop consulting on refurbishment options for a housing estate and focus on regeneration alone was unlawful.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th November 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’
Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This was an appeal arising from a claim for possession against three properties by the trustee in bankruptcy of a bankrupt landlord. The Lawtel note rather confusingly refers to it as “accelerated possession proceedings for an order for sale”, which it can’t possibly have been.’
Nearly Legal, 22nd November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025