FreeLegalWeb

The housing association let a property under an assured tenancy whereby rent could be increased in June of each year. The association wished to change this to April and wrote to the tenants informing them of this. The association sought possession and this was defended on the basis that rent was not due as the landlord had departed from the contractual rent variation procedures. The Court held that in this case time was of the essence in the procedure and there was no scope to apply the presumption that time was not of the essence.

C successfully appealed a suspended possession order made against D, the tenant, who lived with her three children. C had obtained an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) against D’s son who acted in breach of the order and caused C to bring possession proceedings for breach of tenancy in causing nuisance or harrassing neighbours. CA held that the lower court had erred in finding there was hope of some sort of improvement in the son to justify a suspended order and had failed adequately to take into account the effect of the ASBO on H’s neighbours as required by the Housing Act 1985 s85A. In the absence of any remorse or well founded expectation of improvement, an immediate possession order was necessary and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 in order to protect the rights of the neighbours.

The long lease Tenant failed in its appeal against a decision to award damages to the landlord in respect of losses suffered due to damage caused to property. Works had been carried out by the tenant to his flat, causing water to leak through the ceiling and cause damage to a flat below which the landlord had rented out on a shorthold tenancy. The Landlord was entitled to claim damages to recover the loss in rent payable by the tenant in the flat below as a result of the damage caused to the flat by the Tenant’s negligence.

C sought specific performance of an alleged contract with D for the sale of D’s flat. C wrote on two diary pages what he alleged was a binding contract for the sale of the flat. However, the claim failed as the disary pages did not comply with sec.2(1) of the Law of Property (Misc. Provisions) Act 1989 because neither page contained mutual obligations to buy and sell and the completion date was not specified in the diary pages.

Where the Lands Tribunal refused permission to appeal the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal, this decision was subject to be judicial reviewed, but only where the decision was wrong in law and the error was sufficiently grave to be treated as exceptional.