We are pleased to present the bumper autumn 2013 edition of our Housing and Asset Management Newsletter.
This edition includes an article exploring the thorny issue of how social landlords could allocate their housing stock in light of the government’s recent “pay to stay” proposals, and considers what categories of applicants could be given the highest priority in light of recent proposals. This edition also includes an article on the controversial decision of the High Court in Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Armour, which will be considered again in the Court of Appeal later this year. For those of our clients who are concerned with service charge recovery, we have included an article about a recent landmark High Court decision relating to the consultation provisions pursuant to Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The team continues to assist our clients in successfully tackling anti-social behaviour and unauthorised subletting. We have therefore included a number of articles on recent cases we have run and won, as well as some useful tips on how and when to rely on hearsay evidence when securing possession and injunction orders.
Housing Management Update
Tuesday 22 October 2013 –
Thursday 21 November 2013 –
For further information, or if you would like to attend any of these events, please contact email@example.com.
This edition includes:
Allocation of social housing: Making a positive contribution to pay off for prospective tenants
The question of whether people earning middle-class salaries should be eligible for social housing has come back into focus recently because of the government’s ‘pay to stay’ proposals. But what additional factors might social landlords consider when allocating their housing stock?
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Armour: Good behaviour is relevant when determining proportionality
A decision of the High Court last year, which has threatened to undermine the purpose of introductory tenancy agreements and, by implication, the probationary or starter tenancy regime, will be considered again in the Court of Appeal later this year.
Moat Homes: No nonsense approach to cannabis cultivation
We recently acted for Moat Homes Limited in seeking possession of a property in Medway, Kent, where cannabis had been grown in the loft. The case is the first in a series of three cases handled by us, all situated within the same street.
Philips v Francis: To Consult or not to Consult?
Landlords should be aware that in a recent landmark High Court decision, it was held that there is nothing in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which requires a landlord to identify one or more sets of qualifying works. Further, if those works are to a building or to a parcel of land and the total costs of those works exceed £250 per leaseholder, the consultation provisions in Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 will apply…
Ace ASB outcome for Asra Housing Group
We have successfully worked with Asra Housing Group to win an outright possession order following reports that the joint tenants of a property had persistently engaged in serious anti-social behaviour and had been dealing Class A drugs from their home.
Hearsay evidence wins the day for Yarlington
The team successfully obtained an outright possession order against an anti-social tenant even without any neighbours coming forward as live witnesses.
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council: Tenant failing to use property as principal home evicted
We recently acted for Southend-on-Sea Council and their ALMO, South Essex Homes, in a claim for possession where the tenant, Ms C, was not using the flat let to her as her only or principal home, in breach of her tenancy agreement.
Why not contact our free Advice Helpline?
We operate a free Housing and Asset management Helpline and email address. If you wish to gain instant access to our lawyers throughout the business day and are looking for practical advice and a quick response to an immediate problem, why not call us on 0345 209 1599 – Monday to Friday 9.00 am or 5:00 pm? Alternatively, if you would like a quick written response to an immediate problem, why not email your query to firstname.lastname@example.org.