Social Housing Case Bulletin

Welcome to the September issue of our case law update

Our social housing team are delighted to share recent cases from the higher jurisdiction courts in England and Wales that are relevant to the social 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.

Advance Housing and Support Limited v Mousah

Ref. F01BS253, Bristol Magistrates’ Court

29 June 2021

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Committal – Sentencing

The Defendant was subject to the terms of an anti-social behaviour injunction forbidding him from using, or threatening to use, violence against any person residing or visiting a specified property owned by the Claimant. Furthermore, it prohibited the Defendant from using abusive, sexual or offensive language and from intimidating or acting in an intimidating manner. There were 45 breaches between March 2020 and April 2021. They were all of the similar nature: the playing of music excessively loudly at anti-social times. The judge was satisfied with the evidence of the breaches. Sentencing was adjourned in the expectation that the Defendant would attend and speak in mitigation on his own behalf. Read transcript >>

Curo Place Ltd v Robert Y

Ref. H00BS273, Bristol Magistrates’ Court

2 June 2021

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Committal – Sentencing

The Defendant was subject to an anti-social behaviour injunction prohibiting him from using or threatening violence towards any person who lived in or was visiting a block of flats owned by the Claimant social landlord. The Defendant had alcohol addiction issues and mental health problems. His occupation of his property was under a starter tenancy, and a s.21 Housing Act 1988 notice had been served, which would take effect at a later date. The harm level of breach was neither serious nor persistent, but it had caused a lot of distress. The judge took into account the Defendant’s guilty plea and that it was the first breach. A sentence of 14 days imprisonment was handed down, suspended on the proviso that the Defendant complied with the terms of the injunction. Read transcript >>

Kowalek v Hassanein Ltd

[2021] UKUT 143, Lands Chamber

18 June 2021

Housing – Rent Repayment Orders – Relevant conduct

This appeal was against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ordering the Respondent landlord to repay a limited sum to the Appellant tenants. Section 44(4)(a) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 required the FTT to take into account the conduct of the tenant when determining the amount of an order. The main issue was whether the existence of rent arrears amounted to relevant “conduct” in determining the amount of a rent repayment order. There was no reason why relevant conduct should not include that of a tenant in relation to the obligations of their tenancy. Failing to pay rent without explanation was a serious breach of such obligations. The substantial arrears were the main factor on which the FTT had relied in limiting the amount of the order to half of the total rent paid. Appeal dismissed. Read transcript >>

Minister v Hathaway

[2021] EWCA Civ 936, Court of Appeal

23 June 2021

Housing – Possession – Section 21 notices

The issue in this appeal was whether a notice served by the Respondent landlord on the Appellant tenant under s.21 of the Housing Act 1988 was invalid because no energy performance certificate (EPC) had been served by the landlords on the tenant prior to the service of the s.21 notice. The answer was dependent on whether service of an EPC was required by virtue of the 1988 Act, the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015. The requirements under s.21A and s.21B of the 1988 Act, to provide prescribed information to the tenant, including about energy performance, only applied to assured shorthold tenancies in existence on or after 1 October 2015. The tenant’s tenancy pre-dated that by six years. The s.21 notice was not invalid. Appeal dismissed. Read transcript >>

Patel v Hackney LBC

[2021] EWCA Civ 897, Court of Appeal

21 June 2021

Housing – Intentional homelessness – Expenditure calculations

The Appellant challenged a review decision by the Respondent Council that he had become homeless intentionally and was not owed more than the limited housing duty set out in s.190(2) of the Housing Act 1996. Unless it could be shown that the officer had materially misdirected himself or failed to take relevant matters into account there was no error of law. Re-calculations of income and expenditure were routine in many homelessness applications, but they had to be evidence-based. The Appellant’s own assessment of his income and expenditure was inconsistent and supporting documentation was missing. There was no error of law. Appeal dismissed. Read transcript >>

Taylor & anor v Burton

[2021] EWHC 1454, Administrative Court

28 May 2021

Housing – Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Compensation

The Respondent tenant brought an action against the Appellant landlord, arguing the house in which she lived was prejudicial to her health, and a ‘statutory nuisance’ under s.79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The nuisance had since been abated. The Respondent had been awarded compensation for her expenses in bringing the case. The Appellants appealed. They contended that the Respondent had failed to respond to the Appellants’ requests for access to carry out works of repair; that the Magistrates had erred in law in relation to costs and had failed to give any reasons for rejecting the Appellants’ submissions. The Magistrates had taken an insufficiently proper approach to the assessment of quantum of compensation and had erred in ordering the compensation to be paid to the Respondent’s solicitors. In those respects, the appeal was allowed. The Magistrates’ Orders were quashed and the case remitted for consideration of the amount to be ordered to be paid to the Respondent. Read transcript >>