“A mandatory power of repossession is proposed by the government to make it easier to evict troublesome tenants from social housing.”
The Guardian, 3rd August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“It is certainly not a truism that legislation which is given the closest possible scrutiny is thereafter free from doubt – consider, for example, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provsions) Act 1989, which we always used to call the mysterious provisions Act because nobody was quite sure what its ambit was (as has subsequently proved to be the case).”
The Guardian, 2nd August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Barnsley Metroplitan Borough Councl v Norton and others [2011] EWCA Civ 834; [2011] WLR (D) 240
“The duty in section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was intended to apply whenever an authority was taking decisions such as a decision to seek possession of a disabled person’s home.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A Cumbrian council has won a legal bid to take over a private, empty home and rent it out to a homeless family.”
BBC News, 21st July 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The provisions of the insolvency legislation did not fetter the power of the county court to make a possession order for non-payment of rent against a bankrupt assured tenant or an assured tenant protected by a debt relief order (“DRO”) made under Part 7A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (inserted by section 108(1) of and Schedule 17 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) , although the court could not make an order for payment of unpaid rent against a bankrupt’s estate. Although the moratorium under a debt protection order rendered it unreasonable to make a suspended possession order conditional on paying off past debt, the county court had jurisdiction to make such an order conditional on payment of the current rent.”
WLR Daily, 15th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Options for dealing with squatters – impact assessment.”
Ministry of Justice, 13th July 2011
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“The government’s own impact assessment of plans to criminalise squatting has acknowledged that it could boost homelessness and rough sleeping, and target those who are already suffering from mental health and addiction problems.”
The Guardian, 13th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The prime minister’s confirmation that the government will be bringing forward legislation for the criminalisation of trespass and the proposed removal of removal of legal aid from trespassers in the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill amount to the most significant changes to the law of trespass in England and Wales for generations.”
The Guardian, 13th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The house that inspired Toad Hall in the book The Wind In The Willows is at the centre of a £5m High Court dispute.”
BBC News, 11th July 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Paul and Amanda Wilkes and their two children were finally thrown out of their home after 57 allegations of anti-social behaviour in just five months. But they have secured legal aid to take Blackpool council to the European Court of Human Rights – despite admitting ‘we’re no angels.’ ”
Daily Telegraph, 11th June 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A quarter of the 1,600 children held in young offenders’ institutions in England and Wales have been in care, a report by prison inspectors has found.”
BBC News, 26th May 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (Nassery) v Brent London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 539; [2011] WLR (D) 156
“Where a local authority was assessing whether a person was ‘in need of care and attention’ for the purposes of section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 the primary focus was on present rather than future needs, but provided there was a present need for some sort of care an authority was also empowered to intervene before it became much worse.”
WLR Daily, 11th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed
Regina (G) v Lambeth London Borough Council and another [2011] EWCA Civ 526; [2011] WLR (D) 152
“Accommodation ostensibly provided to a child aged 16 to 17 by a council as a local housing authority was to be deemed to be accommodation provided by it as a children’s services authority where the child met the criteria of a ‘child in need’ within section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 and the actions of a social worker working for the council in a different team could properly be imputed to the social services division. Consequently on reaching adulthood that person became a ‘former relevant child’ within section 23C(1) of the 1989 Act, as inserted, and was owed the duties set out in that section.”
WLR Daily, 6th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Sharif v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 463; [2011] WLR (D) 148
“A local housing authority’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by a homeless applicant was not discharged by providing two self-contained flats with no shared communal living areas, one for occupation by the applicant and her sister and the other for occupation by her father, because such accommodation was not available for occupation by the applicant together with any other persons who normally resided with her as members of her family within the meaning of section 176 of the 1996 Act.”
WLR Daily, 20th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where a lease provided for quiet enjoyment that meant an ability to use the premises in an ordinary lawful way. Consequently where a disabled tenant requested a service from his landlord such as repair or redecoration the court had to assess whether the provision of that service would enable him to live as would any other typical tenant in the premises.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Makisi v Birmingham City Council; Yosief v Same; Nagi v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 355; [2011] WLR (D) 124
“An applicant for housing under the homelessness provisions who, on an review of a decision to refuse accommodation, had a right to make oral representations where there had been a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, could insist on a face-to-face hearing with the reviewer at which he or his representative could make representations.”
WLR Daily, 31st March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The government is facing a legal challenge to its controversial plans to cap housing benefit payments on the grounds that large areas of the south-east will become off limits to the poor, with lone parents and ethnic minorities ‘disproportionately affected’.”
The Guardian, 7th March 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“In all cases where a local authority was seeking possession of a property which constituted a persons home, including persons who had been granted introductory tenancies pursuant to Part V of the Housing Act 1996 and persons who had been granted a licence of property under the homelessness regime in Part VII of the 1996 Act, the court being asked to make the order for possession had to have the power, pursuant to article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to consider whether the order would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
WLR Daily, 25th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Children as young as 13 are being released from custody without a safe place to live, forcing them into a cycle of homelessness and reoffending, research has shown.”
The Guardian, 28th February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hackney London Borough Council v Findlay [2011] EWCA Civ 8; [2011] WLR (D) 7
“Where a court had made an order for possession against a tenant in his absence, on an application to set aside that order under CPR r 3.1 the court should take all the circumstances into account under r 3.9, where the tenant could show for the purposes of r 39.3(5) that he had acted promptly when he found out about the possession order, had a good reason for not attending the trial and had a reasonable prospect of success on the application, giving precedence to the requirements of r 39.3(5).”
WLR Daily, 21st January 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024