“Social landlords face a constant struggle trying to persuade heavily indebted tenants that paying rent is a priority over paying off the tenants’ bigger, more threatening creditors.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 13th September 2011
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Tristmire Ltd v Mew and another [2011] EWCA Civ 912; [2011] WLR (D) 271
“A houseboat placed on a supporting platform in a harbour did not have a degree of permanence such as to make it part of the plot on which the platform stood so that a tenancy or licence of the plot would extend to the houseboat.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln (Case C-450/09); [2011] WLR (D) 121
“National legislation which allowed a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who had transferred immovable property to him, from the rental income derived from that property, but did not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, was contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities resulted from the transfer of that property.”
WLR Daily, 31st March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Hughes v Borodex Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 425; [2010] WLR (D) 106
“A tenant who had made extensive improvements at her own expense to the flat which she held on a long residential tenancy was not entitled to have those improvements disregarded by a Rent Assessment Committee fixing the rent of the new assured periodic tenancy of the same premises. On the proper interpretation of Sch 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the improvements fell to be taken into account even though the effect was that the new rent as assessed exceeded the statutory maximum for protection as an assured tenant, the tenant lost her protection and the landlord became entitled to serve a notice to quit.”
WLR Daily, 28th April 2010
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.
Octagon Assets Ltd v Remblance and Another
Court of Appeal
“Where rent arrears were sought from both a corporate tenant and a guarantor it was ostensibly unjust to decline to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor mrerly because he could afford to pay the debt; if a statutory demand would not be sustained against the principal debtor it was also unjust to treat the guarantor differently.”
The Times, 27th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Octagon v Remblance and another [2009] EWCA Civ 581; [2009] WLR (D) 196
“In a case in which a corporate tenant and a guarantor were pursued for rent arrears, it was difficult to see how it could be just not to set aside a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor where the principal debtor satisfied one of the conditions in r 6.5(4)(a) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, merely because the guarantor could afford to pay the debt. Moreover, where the tenant’s and guarantor’s liability were co-extensive and there were no good reasons for distinguishing between the position of the guarantor and that which would obtain if the tenant applied under r 6.5(4)(a) to set aside a statutory demand, justice and r 6.5(4)(d) of the 1986 Rules demanded that a statutory demand obtained against the guarantor should be set aside.”
WLR Daily, 18th June 2009
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.
Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council (No 2)
House of Lords
“The requirement that a local authority which had delayed processing a right-to-buy claim should deduct from the purchase price the purchasing tenant’s rent payments during the period of delay applied where the tenant’s rent had been paid for him in the form of housing benefit.”
The Times, 16th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council (No 2) [2009] UKHL 29; [2009] WLR (D) 181
“The requirement that a local authority which had delayed processing a ‘right to buy’ claim under Pt V of the Housing Act 1985 should deduct from the purchase price the purchasing tenant’s rent payments during the period of delay remained applicable where the tenant’s rent had been paid for him in the form of housing benefit.”
WLR Daily, 11th June 2009
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.
Gargett v Lambeth London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“An applicant who had been in receipt of income and housing benefit and had been paid her housing costs had not been deprived of the right to seek discretionary housing payments for arrears of unpaid increased rent on the ground she had already received her housing costs payment.”
The Times, 20th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Scottish and Newcastle plc v Raguz
House of Lords
“Rent increases that would become retrospectively payable under uncompleted rent reviews had not been ‘now due’ within the meaning of section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 and the landlords had not been required to serve protective notices on assignors under that section in respect of them.”
The Times, 3rd November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65; [2008] WLR (D) 335
“Landlords were not required to serve notices under s 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 in respect of rent increases that would become retrospectively payable when rent reviews were completed. Such increases were ‘now due’ within the meaning of s 17.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2008
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.
Regina (Heffernan) v Rent Service
House of Lords
“Rent officers should not base a local reference rent on too large an area.”
The Times, 20th August 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Heffernan) v Rent Service; [2008] WLR (D) 279
“Rent officers, in identifying the ‘locality’ under Sch 1, Pt I to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, as amended, needed to assemble only enough ‘neighbourhoods’ to satisfy the requirements of para 4(6)(c). ‘A broad geographical area’ was misleading. ‘Neighbourhood’ was similarly not to be interpreted as comprising too large an area. The rent officer’s inquiry was restricted to the ‘facilities and services’ specified in para 4(6)(b).”
WLR Daily, 1st August 2008
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.
Agreement contained a rent review clause
Court of Appeal
“Where an assured tenancy agreement contained a clause providing the machinery for the increase of the rent, the landlord was not required to comply with the rent review procedure set out by section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.”
The Times, 13th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online 21 days from the date of publication
“Where an assured tenancy agreement contained a clause providing the machinery for the increase of the rent the landlord was not required to comply with the rent review procedure set out by s 13 of the Housing Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 26th June 2007
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.
Reasonable notice is required for rent rise in wrong month
Riverside Housing Association Ltd. v. White and Another
House of Lords
“A tenancy agreement issued by a housing association stating that the rent would be increased annually with effect from the first Monday of June each year did not prevent the landlord from increasing the rent from a date after the first Monday in June, provided appropriate notice was given to the tenants.”
The Times, 7th May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A clutch of Britain’s biggest landowners who together count for about £100 billion of commercial property have won a landmark High Court battle to prevent tenants wriggling out of unpaid rent when they go under.”
The Times, 2nd May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024