Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

Gypsy and Traveller Cases

Rashid v Nasrullah

Rashid v Nasrullah [2018] EWCA Civ 2685

The appellant (F) appealed against an order of the Upper Tribunal, made on the application of the respondent (M) who had subsequently died and was represented by his executor, directing the rectification of the land register so as to restore M’s name as the registered proprietor of certain land.   Until 1989, M had been the registered proprietor of the land in question.  In 1989, F’s father perpetrated a fraud whereby he procured both the transfer of the land to himself and his registration as its proprietor.  F was complicit in the fraud and in 1990 his father gifted the land to him and had him registered as its proprietor.   In 2011, M sought rectification of the register.  F objected arguing that he had been in adverse possession for over 20 years.

FJM – v – The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights

FJM – v – The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, application number 76202/16 – 6th November 2018

The applicant is a vulnerable adult with psychiatric and behavioural problems. She had lost two public sector tenancies on account of her behaviour. In May 2005 the applicant’s parents purchased a property with the assistance of a mortgage. They then granted the applicant an assured shorthold tenancy of the property and she claimed housing benefit to pay the rent. The parents fell into arrears with the mortgage repayments and, in August 2008, the finance company exercised its powers under the mortgage to appoint receivers. The mortgage arrears persisted and, in January 2012, the receivers served notice on the applicant under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which permitted the Court to make an order for possession of a property let under an assured shorthold tenancy if it was satisfied that the landlord had given the tenant at least 2 months’ notice in writing that possession was required. The applicant sought to resist the possession order on the basis of violation of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention (the right to respect for private, family life and home). The Supreme Court had previously rejected the possibility of such a defence. The ECtHR also rejected this possibility. The ECtHR concluded:-

R (TW, SW and EM) – v – London Borough of Hillingdon and EHRC (intervener) [2018] EWHC 1791 (Admin) 13 July 2018

The London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) allocates social housing in accordance with an Allocations Policy from 2016.  Under that Policy, applicants for social housing are placed into Bands (A, B, C or D) according to priority for social housing which they have under the policy.  Obviously a person in Band A has a better chance of being allocated housing than a person in Band B and so on.

Borough Wide Injunctions

Over recent years there have been reports of local authorities obtaining wide injunctions against unauthorised encampments. The latest example was Waltham Forest LBC v Persons Unknown where Lang J granted the final injunction on 12 January 2018. As usual, the defendants were not represented. TAT believe this type of injunction is potentially very challengeable on grounds including reasonableness and proportionality. We would be very interested in hearing from anyone adversely affected by such an injunction or any application for an injunction.

Attachments

Total Attachments: 1

borough wide injunctions attach (103 KB)

Public Law Defences to Possession Actions

Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] WLR(D) 1411, is not a Traveller case but is a useful reminder that, even where there is no security of tenure, a public law defence can be put forward to a possession action (in this case concerning Children Act 2004 section 11).

See the transcript at: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/379.html&query=(davies)+AND+(v)+AND+(hertfordshire)

Green Belt Planning Appeals

Connors & ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG); Mulvenna & Smith v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1850, 17 November 2017.

The case of Mulvenna and Smith concerned the discriminatory decision by Eric Pickles, back in 2014 when he was SSCLG, to recover their respective planning appeals for his own determination. Having done so Mr Pickles rejected his Planning Inspector’s recommendation in each case that planning permission be granted and he dismissed both appeals.

John Romans Parks Homes Limited v Michael and Julie Hancock

John Romans Parks Homes Limited v Hancock CH1/19UM/PHC/2017/0002

This was a First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber case. In August 2003 Mr and Mrs Hancock sold their bungalow and purchased their mobile home at the Morn Gate Park Site in Dorchester. John Romans Limited purchased the park from A & M Properties Limited in May 2015. John Romans Limited sought to evict Mr and Mrs Hancock from the park simply by serving them with notice to leave.

Port of London Authority v Mendoza

PLA v Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC), 24 November 2016.

The boat in question in this case was called the Wight Queen and was moored without engine or wheelhouse on the North bank of the Thames not far from Kew Bridge. It was owned and lived in by Mr Mendoza. On 16 November 2009 the Port of London Authority (PLA) applied to the Land Registry for first registration of its title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames between Kew Bridge and Brentford Ait.