Court in middle
Landlords seeking evictions are in a difficult position as judges decide which court does what, says Ian Larkins
Social landlords are suffering an ongoing housing management nightmare in the wake of Weaver v London & Quadrant Housing Trust. The landmark case has triggered several public law arguments over which court does what in any cases relating to public law challenges, including eviction cases.
In the recent case of Manchester City Council v Pinnock, the Court of Appeal limited a county court’s jurisdiction to bring a possession claim and then rule on that claim. That decision will not be appealed before the Supreme Court until July, so social landlords have been left in a potentially costly, time-consuming state of limbo over the possession claims process.
Already, another five cases have come before the appellate court - each relating to local authority decisions to seek possession against non-secure tenancies involving introductory tenants and homeless people.
Each case sought to challenge the decision to evict by claiming an improper exercise of the local authorities’ power. The Court of Appeal dismissed these appeals, reaffirming that ‘gateway B’ public law defences - which test whether the decision to seek possession was one that no reasonable person would consider justifiable - are to be determined by the Administrative Court rather than the county court.
Permission to appeal has been granted for both an introductory and a homeless-type case and both will be heard alongside the Pinnock appeal in July 2010. However, until then, social housing providers are in the precarious and potentially expensive position of being discouraged from evicting certain tenants and putting the process on hold until final outcome of these cases.
Ian Larkins is a solicitor on the property litigation team at Weightmans
Ian.larkins@weightmans.com
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
kjetilniki | 05/05/2010 11:39 am
PRHPs formerly RSLs formerly Housing associations,shouldn't worry too much. They should remember their primary objective is to house people.
solicitors looking to use gateway b do so on the basis they are forced to do so having no other alternative and are arguing this is this person's home and it is reasonable to allow them to live there.
Most frequently it is argued on behalf of people with limited security in circumstances where a court would not have evicted very often where there are problems coping with life.
the CoA in the 5 part case only held that introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies had to go via the JR route. Certain other cases did not.
The key issue about Pinnock when it is heard is that the Suprme court has to reconcile what it has previously said when it was the HoL which has been contradicted by a series of Strasbourg cases in the last year or 2 namely
loss of one's home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home.
any person at risk of an interference with his right to home should in principle be able to have the proportionality and reasonableness of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, he or she has no right to occupy a flat.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment