Reported Cases

Huda -v- London Borough of Redbridge (2016)

The case was about temporary accommodation becoming a “settled accommodation”.

Represented Mr Huda who was placed into a temporary accommodation or “nightly – let” accommodation by London Borough of Redbridge in 2008.

He was owed the full housing duty by Waltham Forest Council and refused the offer of accommodation made in discharge of the duty. He had then applied as homeless to the London Borough of Redbridge. The London Borough of Redbridge made a negative decision on his homeless application and Mr Huda appealed. He was provided with accommodation pending his appeal. It took almost a year to appeal and unfortunately the appeal did not go into Mr Huda’s favour and the decision that he was intentionally homeless was reached.

The London Borough of Redbridge did not evict the family until 2012.

Mr H argued that this temporary accommodation had become settled.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying that the Council had acted promptly to begin evicting the family, once they had realised their error. The terms of occupation had never converted to an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and had remained 'precarious'.

Saleh -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest (2019)

This case established that when reviewing a homelessness decision under the Housing Act 1996, the review officer must reconsider the decision considering relevant circumstances at the date of the review, rather than only the facts at the time of the original decision.

Mr Saleh’s daughter suffered from type 1 diabetes and he wanted to be housed in Waltham Forest so that his family could be close to daughter’s school, family, and hospital. The review officer upheld the original decision, that the accommodation was suitable – but had not considered whether other suitable accommodation existed closer to, or within, the district. Mr Saleh appealed, and the County Court held that the review officer should have considered the availability of other accommodation. London Borough of Waltham Forest appealed.

Notable cases

Y -v- London Borough of Redbridge

Judicial Review

The Council accepted that the client’s accommodation was not suitable, however failed to provide alternative accommodation to this vulnerable client. We successfully issued a judicial review claim which forced the Council to provide an alternative accommodation to our client and agreed to pay our costs.

T -v- London Borough of Redbridge

Judicial Review

The Council accepted that the client’s accommodation was not suitable for him and his family but failed to move him to an alternative accommodation. We had to issue the judicial review claim and as soon as the claim was issued, the Council offered an alternative accommodation to our client and agreed to pay our costs.

S -v- T

Possession matter

We were acting on behalf of T. The private landlord S tried enforcing the possession order against T by making an application for a bailiff warrant due to T being in significant arrears. T made an application to suspend the warrant of eviction. The landlord’s position was that a new tenancy agreement had been entered into since the 5 December 2018 order, which he was trying to enforce, as evidenced by the Section 13 notice dated 20 May 2024, which increased the rent to £2200 per month from 20 July 2024. We argued that, given this, the warrant should be set aside as it relates to the previous tenancy.

The Landlord admitted to serving the Section 13 notice but denied that a new tenancy had been created. S argued that any new tenancy agreement would have to be in writing, rather than being oral.

The Judge considered the Section 13 notice and concluded that he was satisfied, a new oral tenancy agreement had been created between S and T since the original possession order. As a result, the Judge ordered that the warrant be set aside. The full details of the Judge's order are as follows

a. The warrant of possession is to set aside, based on the court's conclusion that a new oral assured short hold tenancy has been created since the possession order of 5 December 2018.

b. The landlord’s application to appeal the court’s decision that a new tenancy has been created was refused, as the Judge determined there was no real chance of success.

c. S has been asked to pay T’s costs.

H – v- London Borough of Redbridge

Section 204 (1) (a) of the HA 1996 appeal

He was provided with unsuitable accommodation by the Council in discharge of section 193 (2) of the HA 1996. The suitability review was negative and we successfully appealed the Council’s decision. The Council lost and they were ordered to pay our costs. The Council had to carry out a fresh section 202 review.

B -v- Brentwood Borough Council

Section 204 (1) (a) of the HA 1996 appeal

Challenged negative Council’s section 202 decision stating that the client was not vulnerable despite significant mental health issues. The appeal was successful and the Council was ordered to carry out a fresh section 202 review, which was again successful as the Council eventually accepted that the client was vulnerable.

L&Q – v- S; A

Possession

This was a possession matter that was defended because we believed that our client succeeded the secure tenancy granted to his grandfather and if he failed to succeed, then L&Q should have exercised their discretion in his favour and should have allowed him to stay at this property considering how vulnerable he was.