‘The recent decision in Regent Wealth Ltd and others v Wiggins [2014] EWCA Civ 1078 is a clear reminder to practitioners to register notices under s.13, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In possession proceedings the court should approach a defence based on disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in the same way as it would approach one based on article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A planning inspector has dismissed a developer’s appeal to have the affordable housing requirement removed from a planning obligation, under a procedure introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act.’
Full story
OUT-LAW.com, 31st July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘When considering the provision of accommodation under section 3(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 it would usually be difficult to say, absent special circumstances, that a clinical commissioning group had acted lawfully or irrationally in deciding that the accommodation needs of an individual could and should be met through other avenues involving means-tested state provision, and not out of its own NHS budget.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A local authority acted illegally when it introduced strict residency criteria designed to prevent it becoming a magnet for “benefit tourists” priced out of high-cost areas of London and the south-east by welfare reforms, a judge has ruled.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
McDonald and others v McDonald: [2014] EWCA Civ 1049; [2014] WLR (D) 336
‘Where a private landlord sought a possession order under section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 the tenant could not resist the making of the order on the ground that it would be disproportionate under article 8.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘At the end of May, the High Court ruled that the reduction in Housing Benefit under Regulation B13 of Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations – commonly dubbed “the bedroom tax” – did not unlawfully discriminate against a family with a disabled child requiring an additional bedroom for overnight careers because the shortfall was covered by discretionary housing payments.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This is a fascinating judicial review case. While the specific facts might only apply to a very few people, there is an interesting principle in it which may have wider application.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal raises three important questions. Unfortunately, the answers to them are rather brief and rather negative. The issues are i) whether a s.202 review of a s.184 decision can come to a finding which is substantially worse for the applicant that the original s.184 decision; ii) whether a review officer should conduct a hazard assessment (Housing Act 2004) when considering whether it is reasonable for an applicant to occupy their accommodation; and iii) how far should a review officer look to the future when considering whether the applicant is homeless.’
NearlyLegal, 30th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has upheld Reading Council’s decision to refuse consent for a plan to build a residential development on a site designated in local planning documents for a mixed-use scheme.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A local authority’s review officer was entitled to substitute a less favourable decision than the original decision in relation to a homeless applicant because circumstances had changed, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th June 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has refused Greenwich Council’s application for judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision to allow the removal of the affordable housing requirement attached to a planning permission, according to a report in Planning Magazine.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘We covered the case of Beech v Birmingham CC in the High Court here. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard on 11/6/2014 and judgement was given on 17/6/2014.
I will not repeat the facts here except to say that the appeal was narrowed down to only two grounds of challenge: namely that the notice to quit was procured from the late Mrs Warren under undue influence from the housing officer, Mr Pumphrey, and that it had been given when no formal mental capacity assessment had been carried out, in breach of the Code of Practice issued under s.42(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the ‘public law defence’).’
NearlyLegal, 22nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Haile v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 792; [2014] WLR (D) 257
‘The question of whether a person applying to a local authority for housing accommodation was intentionally homeless within the meaning of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, with the result that the local authority was under no duty to provide such accommodation to her under that section, was to be determined by reference to whether the person’s homelessness was intentional on the date on which she became homeless and not on the date of the local authority’s decision.’
WLR Daily, 13th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 792, the question for the Court of Appeal was the relevant date for determining whether an applicant is intentionally homeless. On the facts, this was a significant question: Ms Haile had left her room in a hostel on 25th October 2011 to go to stay with a friend. Only one person was entitled to occupy the room. She said that she left the room because of unpleasant smells in the hostel. At the time she left the room, she was pregnant and she gave birth to the beautifully named Delina on 15th February 2012. Now, clearly, as of Delina’s birth, the room would not have been reasonable for Ms Haile to continue to occupy because more than one person would be occupying it in breach of the tenancy agreement. However, the council found her intentionally homeless because they did not accept that, as of 25th October 2011, the smells into the room made it not reasonable to continue to occupy.’
NearlyLegal, 16th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court ruling has sided with the taxman over legislation introduced last year which aims to stop wealthy property buyers avoid paying tens of thousands of pounds in stamp duty.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Some of you, those in London at least, might have noticed Boris Johnson announce a new, and completely voluntary, no compulsion here, landlord accreditation scheme. The idea being that tenants, desperate to find somewhere in the middle of the worst accommodation shortage in London for many, many years, will choose to avoid a ‘non-Boris’ landlord. This is of dubious worth, but no matter, what concerns us here is what followed that announcement. Bear with me, because it is worth it in the end.’
NearlyLegal, 12th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Here is an interesting FTT bedroom tax decision from Runcorn, received via RAISE who are clearly doing good work in supporting such appeals.’
NearlyLegal, 6th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Hines v Lambeth London Borough Council: [2014] EWCA Civ 660; [2014] WLR (D) 238
‘A person whose right to remain in the United Kingdom had expired and who sought housing assistance under the Housing Act 1996 on the basis of a derivative right of residence as a primary carer of her son, a British citizen, would be entitled to accommodation only if her son would be effectively compelled to leave the United Kingdom if she left.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024