Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

Housing Cases

County Court finds landlord to have unlawfully discriminated by seeking eviction through a section 21 notice

At a trial on 14th October 2024, the County Court found that a landlord had unlawfully discriminated against their tenant by seeking eviction after service of a section 21 notice. The Court dismissed the landlord’s possession claim and ordered the landlord to pay their tenant £13,000 in compensation for discrimination plus a further £1,242.85 in compensation for disrepair.

Rent Arrears and Anti-Social Behaviour

What happens when a landlord wants to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour (ASB) having already obtained an order for possession on the ground of rent arrears?

The landlord will usually ask the court to consider whether or not to suspend the warrant in light of the allegations of ASB, even if the court would be prepared to suspend the warrant in light of the rent arrears.

R (Ward & Ors) – v – LB Hillingdon and EHRC (Interveners)

[2019] EWCA Civ 692, 16 April 2019

Ms Ward and Mr McDonagh were Irish Travellers who applied for housing to LB Hillingdon (LBH) and were placed in the lowest band on the waiting list because they had not resided in the borough for 10 years. Mr Gullu was an asylum seeker who was also placed in the lowest band for the same reason. At first instance, Supperstone J held that LBH had indirectly discriminated against Ms Ward and Mr McDonagh but Mostyn J dismissed the calm by Mr Gullu. The Court of Appeal concluded that the 10 year residency requirement amounted to indirect discrimination against all 3 claimants and that LBH had failed to justify that indirect discrimination. However the Court of Appeal did not uphold Supperstone J’s finding that the 10 year residency requirement also amounted to a breach of Children Act 2004 s11.

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.

Remove a Tenant? Maybe not this time!

A Circuit Judge has ruled that an order for possession made under Ground 8 Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 be set aside because the notice sent to the tenant omitted certain words in reciting the statutory ground relied upon. Ground 8 is a ground for possession available to certain landlords when arrears of rent are seriously high (usually 2 months or more). Where this ground applies, the Court usually does not have the power to refuse to make the possession order (although there are numerous ways of defeating a Ground 8 claim).