Court blocks L&Q's public bodies appeal

Readers' comments (13)

• kass | 06/11/2009 2:57 pm

  Let's hope this is the start of the end of social landlords' arrogance in thinking they can't be challenged by their tenants, clients or customers (whgatever they are calling us nowadays).

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Junior | 06/11/2009 3:40 pm

  Wonderful, Wonderful, Wonderful, New.
  
  Love you you Law Lord - Love you lots and lots and lots

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Junior | 06/11/2009 4:54 pm

  Three Cheers for the Solicitor and we Resident thank you for standing by Sue, Susan Weaver - Well I thanks you and hopefully you read what on this website if not I hope Sue, Susan Weaver is and tell them we say thank you.
  
  God Bless the Firm of Solicitor's.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Joe Halewood | 06/11/2009 5:30 pm

  This is totally irresponsible journalism.
  
  To say "The Supreme Court has rejected an application by London & Quadrant to appeal against a ruling that housing associations are public bodies" is legally false.
  
  The ruling in the Weaver case did NOT say "housing associations ARE public bodies" it said SOME of them in CERTAIN circumstances MAYBE public bodies.
  
  The transcript of the Weaver Case decision is available in the public domain and disproves the statement that housing associations are de facto public bodies.
  
  So while IH and some commentators here may wish to think the Weaver Case said this, it didnt and the evidence is there for all to read.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• vernony | 06/11/2009 6:54 pm

  Absolutely brilliant . I believe this means that the findings of the 'Joan Garbet' case can now be handed down, it now makes 'Legitimate Expectations' (Well Legitimate Expectations) .
  
  To drive the point home I hope that if 'Joan Garbet ' in handed down in favour
  then I believe residents should also seek compensation from housing providers who have removed their Wardens despite the objections of their residents.
  
  Sincerely
  
  Vernon J Yarker
  Chairman
  The Sheltered Housing UK Association
  WWW. shelteredhousinguk.com

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Jim Paton | 06/11/2009 10:13 pm

  WAHEY! About time, too! This has seemed obvious ever since the Datafin case (back in the late '70s I think). Pity it's taken so long.
  
  It is, however, more equivocal than the headlines suggest. I could see housing associations now trying to evade judicial review by arguing they are "hybrid" bodies carrying out some public functions and some private ones. If this flies for them, they'll try to argue in specific cases that it belongs in their "private function" category.
  
  Major decision like this often get some lumps chipped out of them afterwards with subtle arguments over distinctions between Weaver and later cases. Let's hope not too much of that is successful and that HA tenants benefit from the sword of JR hanging over their complacent, arrogant and otherwise largely unaccountable landlords.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Susan | 08/11/2009 4:48 pm

  What does this actually mean for tenants? Does this now mean that housing associations are now actually looked upon as being 'public bodies' and not 'quasi public bodies'?
  
  Does this now mean that we can demand that the 'Freedom Of Information Act' should now apply to them? please enlighten me.........

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Joe Halewood | 09/11/2009 0:52 am

  The Weaver Case in simple terms saw two Lord Justices stating that the landlord was a public authority on balance in the specific circumstances of this landlord and this case, and one Lord Justice (Rix) very strongly disagreeing with them.
  
  Rix LJs arguments take up more than half of this disputed judgment and I quote some of his points:-
  
  “ 87. It has seemed to me that both sides of this dispute have had an interest in advancing an argument which would dispose, once and for all, of the issue whether an RSL is for all purposes a hybrid public authority or not.
  
  (And my emphasis) -I very much doubt, however, that such an issue can be debated in this way.
  
  The first two judges had said that termination of a tenancy was all part of the management of a tenancy and Rix disagreed vociferously and makes much sense. Rix LJ goes on to say: -
  
  “88. ... Moreover, in as much as it is suggested that because allocation is a function of a public nature, therefore termination is, I would respectfully disagree. Allocation arises under arrangements made between an RSL and a local authority, where the local authority makes use of such arrangements to fulfil their statutory duty to have an allocation policy.
  
  (Again I empasise) ....However, once an allocation has been made and a prospective tenant has been accepted by an RSL as its tenant, the tenant then enters into a contractual tenancy with the RSL, and their relationship thenceforward is governed, just like any tenant’s relationship with his or her landlord, by private law.”
  
  If all management by an RSL is public in nature as the first two Lord Justice’s said, then an RSL buying a piece of land with private funding is a public act in nature. This is ridiculous. In fact if ‘management’ includes buying pens to write with then this is a public act even if the RSL has received no state subsidy- that is plainly ludicrous.
  
  Ultimately Rix LJ is right when he says that the Weaver Case will and does not state that an RSL is a public body once and for all (and also that it states they are not either.) As the Weaver Case was an ‘advisory’ and not real judgment I am sure this is why the right to appeal this – on a point of law I presume – was turned down. Much as those who wish this ruling to mean that RSLs are de facto public bodies and amenable to Human Right Conventions may think this, unfortunately for them that is not the case at all.
  
  Case No: B5/2008/1638/QBACF – this is the Weaver case number and the full judgment is available in the public domain for those who wish to read it. They should before they jump to erroneous conclusions that it means RSLs are public bodies. They will find that even the two judges who said they were in this case didn’t mean this applies to every RSL and in every circumstance.
  
  Susan - To answer directly re FOIs as this is clear as day – the Dept for Justice stated quite clearly in July that RSLs are NOT subject to Freedom of Information requests.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• kass | 09/11/2009 10:33 am

  Joe Halewood | Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:52 GMT....
  "They will find that even the two judges who said they were in this case didn’t mean this applies to every RSL and in every circumstance... "
  
  Please note:
  
  1) No case ever covers all cases in any legal dispute;
  2) However and whichever way to look at it, this case is a huge step in recognising that all tenants have some human rights no social landlord can go on and on abusing;
  3) no doubt social landlords will try all sorts of measures to wriggle out of their obligation imposed by this case, but tenants are better off because of it in rebutting them. So let see them try.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Sancho | 09/11/2009 1:51 pm

  I have no idea what you're all so pleased about. This won't change how RSLs operate, it just means that they're open to judicial review. If people do spend thousands instigating JRs against every decision that RSLs make, they will achieve very little other than adding another layer of bureaucracy to already overwhelmed organisations. Result: More rent goes on people responding to spurious court cases, less services for tenants.
  
  Bear in mind, too, that despite starting this whole thing and presumably wasting a lot of tax payers money because she decided not to pay her rent, Weaver lost.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment