Clarke Willmott LLP’s social housing team are delighted to provide you with our monthly case law update which includes cases within the last month from the higher jurisdiction courts in England and Wales that are relevant to the affordable housing sector.
We trust that this update will be helpful and we welcome any queries or further help that we can provide by contacting the partners mentioned below.
Keeping abreast of the latest case law is an important aspect of advice to our clients in delivering the highest quality legal services and we trust you will find this a useful update within your business.
Caddick v Whitsand Bay Holiday Park Ltd
 UKUT 63 Lands Chamber
16 February 2015
Landlord and tenant – Service Charges – Whether a ‘lodge’ is a ‘dwelling’
A lodge owners’ association applied for recognition as a tenants’ association. In order to establish that they were ‘qualifying tenants’ under sections 18, 29 and 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the occupants had to show that each of them contributed to the same costs by way of a ‘service charge’ in addition to rent. The application was opposed on the basis that the lodges were not ‘dwellings’ and because the applicants were not ‘tenants’ of the lodges, but tenants only of the plots on which the lodges were situated. It was held that a lodge is not a building as it could be taken to pieces and reassembled at another location. It was a mobile home. Appeal dismissed.
No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coast District Council
 EWHC 223 Administrative Court
19 February 2015
Town and country planning – Local action groups – Conservation of Habitats and Species
This claim under s113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sought to quash parts of the Defendant Council’s Core Strategy and to have the allocation of housing provisions reconsidered. That part of the strategy provided for a housing allocation of 2000 homes. The Claimant challenged the decision on the grounds that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the requirements of the Habitats Directive, but also that the mitigation relied upon within the Core Strategy was faulty and that the strategy itself was undeliverable. The claim was dismissed.
R. (on the application of Kent County Council) v Secretary of State for Health
 EWCA Civ 81 Court of Appeal
11 February 2015
National Assistance – Residential accommodation – Local authority funding
This case concerned the question of which local authority was responsible for funding the residential accommodation of a disabled adult under s21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. The construction of s24(5), which deems a person to be ordinarily resident in a local authority area when they are ordinarily resident elsewhere, was examined. It was held that references to residential accommodation in s24(5) were concerned with residential accommodation provided under the relevant part of 1948 Act itself. The person in question was ordinarily resident in Kent. The deeming provision had no effect on that conclusion. The claim was dismissed.
R. (on the application of Sobko) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Queen’s Bench Division
13 February 2015
Local authorities’ powers and duties – Local Housing Allowance – Meaning of ‘hostel’
The Claimant challenged a decision of the Defendant Council that the local housing allowance, which set a maximum rent, applied to his circumstances, leaving him with a deficit in relation to his rent. The Claimant contended that his accommodation was a ‘hostel’ and not subject to local housing allowance rules. The claim was dismissed. The accommodation did not meet the definition of ‘hostel’ under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 as there was no provision of meals included in the rent charged.
No transcript currently available.
Satnam Millennium Ltd v Warrington Borough Council
 EWHC 370 Administrative Court
19 February 2015
Town and country planning – Local plans – Strategic locations – Development
The Claimant developer applied under s113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to quash parts of the Defendant Council’s Local Plan Core Strategy. The Claimant had land that had been given the status of a ‘Strategic Location’ under a previous plan, but not in a revised version. There were three grounds of appeal. Firstly, that the Defendant had failed to address the objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. Secondly, that a proper Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal had not been carried out and, finally, that the Defendant had unlawfully predetermined the outcome of the Local Plan process. The Claim succeeded on the first ground, on one issue, and also on ground two, but not on ground three.