R (Davis) v Watford BC [2018] EWCA Civ 529 - Where a homeless person appeals under s.204 Housing Act 1996 against the authority’s s.184 decision because they have not notified him of their s.202 review decision within the prescribed time, the appropriate means of challenging any refusal to extend interim accommodation is by way of judicial review, not by s.204A appeal.

Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] EWCA Civ 379 - This case shows it is permissible to raise a defence to a claim for possession under s.11 Children Act 2004, notwithstanding the lack of a private law right to possession

Bucknall v Dacorum BC [2017] EWHC 2094 (QB); [2017] HLR 40 - The High Court has held that it is a question of fact whether accommodation occupied after the acceptance of a full housing duty under s.193(2), Housing Act 1996, but which was initially provided to the applicant under s.188, is a “dwelling” for the purposes of ss.3 and 5, Protection from Eviction Act 1977. In the present case, the appellant occupied the property as a dwelling and the notice to quit served on her was invalid because it did not contain the information prescribed by the Notices to Quit etc. (Prescribed Information) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/2201).

Trindade v Hackney LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 942; [2017] HLR 37 - An applicant will not be unaware of a relevant fact, within the meaning of the intentional homelessness provisions, if he is unaware of some future possibility; he must be unaware of some current fact. The Court of Appeal has held that an act or omission which led to a person’s homelessness will only have been in good faith for the purpose of Housing Act 1996, s.191(2), where the applicant can show that at the time of the act or omission he had an active belief that a specific state of affairs would arise or continue in the future based on a genuine investigation about those prospects and not on mere aspiration. The court also held that the issue of whether an act or omission is in good faith within the meaning of Housing Act 1996, s.191, must be judged by reference to the applicant’s housing position and requirements for accommodation.

Hertfordshire CC v Davies [2017] EWHC 1488 (QB); [2017] 1 WLR 4395; [2017] HLR 33 - The differential treatment between service occupiers and other tenants of local authorities is objectively justifiable, falling within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Parliament, so that their exclusion from security of tenure does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 European Convention on Human Rights.

Watts v Stewart [2016] EWCA Civ 1247; [2017] 2 WLR 1107; [2017] HLR 8 - It was discovered here that the long-standing exclusion of alms persons from security of tenure fairly balances their interests against those of the charity, so that it does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 European Convention on Human Rights.

Hadnutt, Whish and Miah v St. Albans City and District Council - reported in nearly legal and in local media - It appears that in this case, brought by Ms Hadnutt, St Albans DC was found to have failed to adequately amend its constitution, or make the necessary resolutions in council cabinet, to lawfully be able to contract out its statutory review duties under Housing Act 1996.

Holley v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1052, 1 November 2016 - Following the death of Mr Holley’s grandfather in 2012 – since there could be no further statutory succession under ss87-89 Housing Act 1985 – Hillingdon served a notice to quit bringing the subsisting contractual tenancy to an end. Thereafter Mr Holley remained in the property. In legal terms his status was that of a trespasser. Mr Holley put forward the following as his defence:- (i) eviction constituted a disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 ECHR; (ii) that the age criterion in Hillingdon’s allocation scheme, restricting second successions to the over-65s, resulted in unlawful age discrimination; and (iii) that the notice to quit was invalid. HHJ Karp dismissed the defence and proceeded to make a possession order. 

Nicholas v SSD [2015] EWCA Civ 53; [2015] 1 WLR 2116; [2015] HLR 25 – This case debated the issue over the Crown exemption from the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 the question became is the Crown exemption compatible with art.14 European Convention on Human Rights.

Sims v Dacorum BC [2014] UKSC 63; [2015] AC 1336; [2014] 3 WLR 1600; [2015] HLR 7 - It was found in this case that the rule that one joint tenant can unilaterally terminate a tenancy by the service of a notice to quit is not a breach of art.8 European Convention on Human Rights.