Archive for June 2010

Comments Off

The Monk habit

30 Jun 2010 By Nearly Legal Housing Law

Lana Wilson v London Borough of Harrow [2010] EWHC 1574 (QB) This was the combined permission/appeal hearing in the High Court from a first instance hearing by a CJ of a defence to a possession claim based on an NTQ served by a joint tenant. The principal ground of appeal was a further argument that [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Housing Benefit limits

28 Jun 2010 By Nearly Legal Housing Law

You’ve probably already seen this, but new upper limits on housing benefit rates are to be introduced from next April (2011). For a three bed house, the upper limit will be £340 per week For a four bed house, the upper limit will be £400 per week LHA will be limited to between £250 and [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Why can’t tenancy deposits be for more than two months rent?

28 Jun 2010 By Tessa Shepperson Housing Law

Can tenancy deposits be more than two months rent?
This is a question I was asked recently, and I am finding it harder than I thought originally, to answer it. The answer I have come up with is that you can, in that it is not illegal, but it may not be a very good idea.
As [...]

Read more

Comments Off

All mimsy were the borogoves

28 Jun 2010 By Nearly Legal Housing Law

The Jabberwock of the tenancy deposit scheme came whiffling again, in the tulgey wood of Northampton County Court. This time it was the clause that catch to beware of. And there’s a disrepair claim in there too. Paula O’Brien v Jacqueline Jones & Andrew Alexander (T/A Belvoir Huntingdon). Claim No 9KG00335 12/02/2010 [On Lawtel for [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Austin (FC) (Appellant) v. Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark (Respondent), [2010] UKSC 28

24 Jun 2010 By CaseCheck Housing Law

The Appellant’s brother, who is now deceased (“the Deceased”), held a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) of a property owned by the London Borough of Southwark (“the Authority”). The Appellant contends that he lived in his brother’s home for the 12 months preceding his death, caring for him during his terminal illness. The Appeal arises from the efforts of the Appellant to resist the Authority’s efforts to evict him from the property.

Read more

Comments Off

The quietus of the tolerated trespasser

23 Jun 2010 By Nearly Legal Housing Law

Austin v London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28 It has been a long story for Mr Austin and a long, long, long story for the tolerated trespasser. But this Supreme Court judgment should be the last time the Supreme Court is troubled by the legacy of Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council [1987] 1 WLR [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Farewell, then, to “Roof”

21 Jun 2010 By Dave@nearlylegal Housing Law

The last issue of Shelter’s excellent Roof magazine has landed on my desk today.  It’s been a mainstay of my preoccupation with housing issues for the past 20 years, and it would be wrong to let its passing go without a short note.  The last issue is a fitting tribute, reminding us of the magazine’s [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Contracting out homelessness reviews: Technical issues

18 Jun 2010 By Dave@nearlylegal Housing Law

With thanks to Robert Latham, we have the transcript of an interesting section 204 homelessness appeal brought by Ms Shacklady against Flintshire CC in the Mold County Court before HHJ Gareth Jones (07.05.2010).  The substance of the appeal concerned Ms Shacklady’s appeal against Flintshire’s decision to exercise its discretion to use the local connection provisions [...]

Read more

Comments Off

Waiting For Tiensia

17 Jun 2010 By David Smith Housing Law

A case in Central London CC has considered the meaning of ‘received’ in relation to tenancy deposit protection.

Read more

Comments Off

Measuring a measured duty

17 Jun 2010 By Nearly Legal Housing Law

Lambert & Ors v Barratt Homes Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 681 This was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal by Rochdale MBC (the anor in this case) against the judgment of HHJ Grenfell in the Technology and Construction Court. The issue was the finding that Rochdale had a measure duty of [...]

Read more

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 3