Housing law: recent cases
Andrew Lane highlights the cases of interest in the housing field in recent months.
Edward Ajilore v London Borough of Hackney [2014] EWCA Civ 1273
A housing officer had been entitled to conclude that a homeless man's risk of suicide and of relapse into Class A drug use did not make him vulnerable so that he was in priority need for housing. The officer's misinterpretation of the statistical evidence on the risk of suicide amongst the homeless had not vitiated his otherwise careful and reasoned decision, and he had been entitled to conclude on the evidence that the man's risk of relapse into drug addiction did not make him any more vulnerable than the ordinary homeless person.
Islington London Borough Council v QR [2014] EWHC 26 (COP)
A tenant who suffered from schizoaffective disorder and lacked insight into her condition had no capacity to make decisions about her accommodation needs, in particular whether to terminate her secure tenancy. Nevertheless, she had capacity to litigate because her delusional beliefs did not prevent her from being able to manage her life and make most decisions for herself.
Re Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd [2014] UKUT 351 (LC)
Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 Sch.1 para.7B a notice by a landowner that it had applied for an order preventing a mobile home occupier from selling the mobile home would only be effective where the notice post-dated the application.
R (on the application of Ruth Whapples) (Claimant) v Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group (Defendant) & Secretary of State for Health (Interested Party) [2014] EWHC 2647 (Admin)
It could not have been the intention of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 reg.9 that a person's private home would be regarded as a "care home" if they received any element of health care there, so as to result in a loss of their entitlement to housing benefit and the full cost of their accommodation being forced upon the NHS.
R (on the application of (1) Sheila Winder (2) Lisa Marie Dowen (3) Sarah Hampton (Claimants) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (Defendant) & Equality & Human Rights Commission (Intervener) [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin)
A local authority had acted ultra vires by restricting its council tax reduction scheme to those residents who had been living in the borough for two years prior to bringing a new claim. On the true construction of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 s.13A, a local authority did not have the power to define a class of people for the purpose of s.13A(2)(b) by reference to non-financial need.
Jonathan Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd (Formerly Flourish Homes Ltd) [2014] EWCA Civ 1081
A defence based on disability discrimination was to be treated by the court in the same way as a defence based on the ECHR art.8. In the instant case, a homeless person did not have a seriously arguable case that a housing association had breached the Equality Act 2010 s.15 when it treated him as having become intentionally homeless in circumstances where his disability had made him unable to cope with the procedure for obtaining permanent accommodation.
Patrick Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1085
A local authority had been entitled to find that the support network provided by a vulnerable person's family meant that he was not in priority need for accommodation within the meaning of the Housing Act 1996 s.189(1).
Fiona McDonald (by her litigation friend Duncan J McDonald) v (1) Brian John McDonald (2) Margaret Helan McDonald (acting by Andrew Hughes & Julian Smith Joint Receivers) [2014] EWCA Civ 1049
An order giving a private landlord possession of a property held on an assured shorthold tenancy after serving a notice to quit under the Housing Act 1988 s.21(4)(b) did not breach the ECHR art.8. The proportionality test implied into art.8(2) did not apply where there was a private landlord.
Crawley Borough Council v Irvine QBD (Patterson J) 21/07/2014
On an application for permission to appeal against a possession order and for permission to adduce fresh evidence, the judge had not been entitled to order remittal of the case for reconsideration in light of the fresh evidence without making any determination as to the permission to appeal application or substantive appeal.
Midland Heart Ltd v Makkedah Idawah County Court (Birmingham) (Judge David Grant) 11/07/2014
Where possession proceedings had been ongoing for over 11 years, a district judge did not err in law or wrongly exercise his discretion when permitting the tenant to file and serve a counterclaim for damages for disrepair which would be set off against the claim for unpaid rent.
Andy Lane is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers. He can be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..