‘In a conflict between a clear scheme of covenants and complimentary service charge machinery, and ambiguous declarations as to the relationship between one of the parties to the lease and a third party, (both contained in the same lease) the scheme takes precedence and is binding on the parties – coherence trumps uncertainty where provisions are in conflict.’
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2018
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘For the purposes of Section 20B(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) a relevant cost is incurred by an intermediate landlord when that intermediate landlord receives a demand from its own landlord in respect of services provided by it or a superior landlord. A residential tenant’s 18-month limitation period begins to run only when his or her immediate landlord receives a demand incurring the cost, not when the superior landlord providing the service originally incurs its own cost.’
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2018
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Landlords renting properties in England occupied by five or more people, from two or more separate households, will need to hold a house of multiple occupation (HMO) licence from April 2018, Housing Minister Alok Sharma has announced.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd January 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The First Tier Tribunal is entitled to rely on an applicant to send its application, but not the FTT’s subsequent decision, to the respondents to that application. Time will not start running for a party to apply for a permission to appeal until the FTT has itself provided a copy of its decision to that party.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st December 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Under section 20B(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a service charge must be demanded of the tenant within 18 months of the relevant cost having been incurred by the landlord. But what happens when there is a head landlord demanding a charge from an intermediate landlord who, in turn, passes the cost on to their lessees? When does the 18 months run from?’
Nearly Legal, 1st December 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Maidstone Borough Council should pay compensation to a homeless family of £4,170 after it accepted their forcible eviction at short notice from temporary accommodation, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th November 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In November 2010 the appellant, Mr Doka, was evicted from his home at Laburnam Close in South East London on the basis of rent arrears. His former employer, Mr Theobald, subsequently allowed him to stay in his home in Dartford. The arrangement was initially meant to be a temporary one. But after a few weeks the arrangement was put on a more stable footing, with Mr Theobald agreeing to provide what he described as ‘full-time accommodation’, allowing Mr Doka to sleep in his son’s bedroom (while his son was away at University) for £500 a month. Mr Theobald told Mr Doka that he could live there for two-three years, while his son finished at University, though Mr Doka would be required to stay with friend’s on occasion if Mr Theobald’s son returned and needed the use of the room.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal gave guidance as to how an assessment of reasonableness of insurance premiums under s.19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ought to be approached.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st November 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Harris v London Borough of Hounslow [2017] EWCA Civ 1476 is a warning to all secure tenants that face eviction under the new absolute grounds for possession: you must comply with the 7-day statutory time limit to request a review even, it seems, if you can’t.’
The 36 Group, 23rd October 2017
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘Mr Harris, the appellant, was the secure tenant of Hounslow London Borough Council, the respondent. On 17 November 2015, the police obtained a closure order, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ASBCPA 2014), in respect of the property where he lived, following complaints of noise nuisance and visitors loitering, smoking, drinking and using drugs in the stairwell.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Annual Review of Developments in Homelessness Law presentation slides.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 17th November 2017
Source: www.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Three months ago we wrote about a research project and report on housing and health and safety law being carried out for Shelter by legal academics from the Universities of Kent and Bristol. Now the report has been completed.’
Nearly Legal, 14th November 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Britain’s “inadequate” and “outdated” housing laws are failing to prioritise tenant safety, a damning report commissioned by Shelter has found.’
The Independent, 14th November 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A buy-to-let tycoon who banned Indian and Pakistani tenants “because of the curry smell” has been ordered to ditch the policy.’
BBC News, 8th November 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK equality watchdog is seeking an injuction against buy-to-let mogul Fergus Wilson after he told his letting agent to ban “coloured” tenants because they left curry smells in his properties.’
The Guardian, 8th November 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Claimants were the tenants of a property owned by the Defendant by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 18th September 2012. A deposit was paid in the sum of £500 but not protected by the Defendant.’
Nearly Legal, 31st October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The issue in this second appeal was what amounts to ‘settled accommodation’, sufficient to break the chain of causation of intentional homelessness.’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Councils across Britain have been accused of letting rogue landlords off the hook, after new figures revealed that most have failed to secure a single prosecution.’
The Guardian, 28th October 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is frequently common for lessees to complain that the decision of a landlord to insure the freehold building with a particular insurer or under a particular policy is unreasonable because it is too expensive. Often the complaint is based on the lessee having found an alternative quote that does not include the same level of cover as is deemed necessary by the landlord. Sometimes, however, there are also cases where lessees find “like for like” quotes that are significantly cheaper than that obtained by the landlord. While it is well established that s.19, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not require a landlord to obtain services at the cheapest cost, where there is evidence that the market will generally provide those services at a significantly lower price the First-tier Tribunal is more likely to find that the costs incurred by the landlord are not reasonable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th October 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025