“A local housing authority may make a compulsory purchase order (CPO) over an unoccupied house even where the house is not ’empty’ for the purposes of the empty dwellings management orders (EDMO) regime, a High Court judge has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd October 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Did historic ASB by the daughter of a former evicted tenant allow the local authority to refuse to allow her accommodation in the same area? This was the issue in this judicial review of Bolton-at-Home’s (‘Bolton’) decision to refuse a property to Ms Carney.”
NearlyLegal, 21st October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A successful proportionality defence on an introductory tenancy and one upheld on appeal. There is also some helpful confirmation about what can be considered in assessing proportionality.”
NearlyLegal, 21st October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“One of the less well-remarked upon changes in the Localism Act 2010 was a set of radical changes to the role of the Housing Ombudsman (the current incumbent being the lovely Mike Biles). In short, the HO takes over jurisdiction for local authority housing complaints; there is a filter mechanism before the HO can accept a complaint (it has to be referred by a Designated person: MP, Councillor, Tenants Panel). The former is to be welcomed – on one view, the HO now offers a far better, more modern, proactive service than the Local Government Ombudsman in our entrepreneurialised housing system; the latter is to be absolutely deprecated as being not just against the spirit of administrative justice but also as a mechanism for cost-saving in the face of proper redress of grievance/s. Whatever you think about ombudspersons – and a range of views are expressed – there is no doubt that they have consistently exposed various maladministrations across the housing sphere, and they don’t hold back; in addition, their purpose (unlike courts) is to make things better for future ‘customers’ so that there may well be an impact on service delivery from a single instance of maladministration (and not just in that organisation).”
NearlyLegal, 17th October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The Government’s decision to repeal a law designed for regulating property sales and rely on general consumer protection legislation instead will expose housebuilders to new risks and increase their costs at a time when they can scarcely afford it.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“A property built as, and which retained the appearance of, a house but which was being used solely for commercial purposes was not a ‘house … reasonably so called’ for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 so as to give the lessees the right to acquire the freehold compulsorily.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Supreme Court has ended years of legal uncertainty by ruling on what constitutes a house in the contest of leasehold enfranchisement.”
The Lawyer, 11th October 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“A recently announced government reform of the planning laws would extend permitted development rights to house extensions of double the pre-existing limits, to 6m (19 feet) beyond the back wall of a semi-detached house, or 8m (26 feet) in the case of a detached house. The relaxation of the rules, for a fixed three year period, is designed to stimulate construction activity and economic growth. These proposals, however, which will remove the requirement for planning permission, rest on a fundamental misconception as to the role of the planning system. Planning is supposed to deliver a balanced decision based on weighing up all relevant considerations. As any local parish or district councillor knows, extension proposals are often the most contentious proposals because of neighbours’ concerns over loss of privacy, amenity and reduction of property values. Poisonous neighbourhood disputes will undoubtedly increase across the land because concerned neighbours and councillors will no longer have a say on these important local matters.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 3rd October 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“The National Union of Mineworkers today asked the High Court to decide whether it is obliged to meet the cost of former leader Arthur Scargill staying in his London flat.”
The Independent, 2nd October 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“‘For far too long, millions of people on waiting lists have watched helplessly as high-earning social tenants continue to occupy homes designed to help the most vulnerable…if they want to continue using this precious national resource, they will pay for the privilege.’
When the then Housing and Local Government Minister, Grant Shapps MP, launched a consultation on giving social landlords the power to charge market rents to high income tenants on 13 June 2012, he did so using deliberately strong language.”
Harwicke Chambers, 13th September 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 AC 104 and The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2 WLR 287 severely restricted the likelihood of an occupier facing (mandatory) possession of their home successfully defending such a claim in reliance upon Article 8 of the Convention Rights – the right to respect for private and family life.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th September 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The ECtHR’s recent decision in Buckland v UK demonstrates again how wonderfully delphic the subject of housing and Article 8 rights has become.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd September 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Campaign group Save Britain’s Heritage (SAVE) has won the right to a judicial review of the Government’s £35 million transitional fund to help councils after the closure of the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) fund.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th September 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
” Briefly Ms Hickin was the daughter of joint tenants of Solihull and had lived in the house since she was born. The father moved out some 9 years before. On the death of the mother, Ms Hickin sought to succeed to the tenancy under s.89 Housing Act 1985. Solihull served notice to quit on the basis that the father was now the sole tenant, by survivorship, but did not fulfil the residence requirement, so the tenancy was terminable by notice to quit and brought possession proceedings. In the Court of Appeal, Ms H argued, unsuccessfully, that s.89 overrode common law survivorship. The case then went to the Supreme Court, which was divided, finding against Ms H 3:2.”
Nearly-Legal, 11th September 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“The government wants to get planning officers ‘off people’s backs’ with a relaxation of current rules in England.”
BBC News, 6th September 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“There now follows a judicial review of the decision to enforce the possession order made in that claim: JL v SS for Defence [2012] EWHC 2216 (Admin) [not yet on Bailii], heard by Justice Simler QC on 30/7/2012.”
NearlyLegal, 27th August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“This is case that highlights the benchmark for seeking an injunction for accommodation on a judicial review claim.”
NearlyLegal, 26th August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“Just how bad and inappropriate does temporary accommodation have to be to be unsuitable? There is an interesting post by David Thomas on the Anthony Gold ‘Housing and Public Law’ blog about a settled Judicial Review that highlights this issue.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Legal precedent demands that tenants unable to meet unaffordable housing costs are legally homeless. What does this mean in today’s London?”
The Guardian, 21st August 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024