LM Homes Ltd and others v Queen Court Freehold Company Ltd [2018] UKUT 367 (LC)

Upper Tribunal (Lands Tribunal)

20 December 2018

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that leaseholders exercising their right to the collective enfranchisement of a block of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were entitled to acquire interests in the basement, the subsoil beneath the block and the airspace above it, as they all constituted “common parts”.

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had decided two preliminary issues in an application by the Nominee Purchaser (Queen Court Freehold Company Ltd) to acquire the freehold and a number of leasehold interests in the block of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. These issues concerned Queen Court Freehold Company Ltd’s entitlement to acquire leases of areas - a basement, the sub-soil beneath the building and the airspace above it - which the Tribunal held to be common parts of the building.

The appellants appealed.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in dismissing the appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had jurisdiction to determine the terms of acquisition of the leasehold interests and that Queen Court Freehold Company Ltd was entitled to acquire the leases of the sub-soil, basement and airspace, which fell within the definition of “common parts”: (1) the basement constituted common parts, as it contained installations serving the flats; (2).The subsoil formed part of the exterior of the building; and (3) the airspace above was also regarded as part of the exterior of the building. As any development would significantly affect the tenants' ability to maintain these areas, they were therefore entitled to acquire them.

This ruling will be welcomed by tenants, as it provides a wide interpretation of “common parts” and recognises the need for tenants to all parts of the premises for future management. It also highlights the difficulties involved in trying to ring-fence parts of a property for future development, where tenants could bring a collective enfranchisement claim.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Safi v Sandwell Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2876

Court of Appeal

21 December 2018

The Court of Appeal has held that when determining whether a housing applicant and her family should be treated as homeless on the basis that it was unreasonable to expect them to continue to live in their current accommodation, the local authority must consider whether the continued occupation was reasonable for the foreseeable future, as well as the present.

The applicant (Ms Safi) had occupied a one-bedroom flat but, after marrying and having a baby, applied to the local authority (Sandwell Borough Council) for bigger accommodation. She later became pregnant for a second time. Her application was rejected and this decision was upheld by two review panels. It was held that (1) the family was on the housing register and was likely to be rehoused within a reasonable time if it was more flexible, and (2) it was reasonable for the family to continue to occupy their current flat. This was upheld by the County Court, which concluded that Ms Safi was not homeless and that Sandwell Borough Council had no duty under the Housing Act 1996 to provide her with suitable accommodation. Ms Safi appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that Sandwell Borough Council (1) did not properly consider that the birth of a second child would make it unreasonable for the family to continue to live in the flat, and (2) had failed to inform Ms Safi that she had the right to make written representations, and provide her with the procedure for doing so.

The ruling highlights the need for housing authorities to ensure that they consider all relevant circumstances when assessing “reasonableness”.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Alibkhiet v London Borough of Brent v City of Westminster [2018] EWCA Civ 2742

Court of Appeal

6 December 2018

The Court of Appeal has held that two local authorities in London had lawfully discharged their full housing duty by offering homeless people accommodation outside of their districts.

Two local authorities (London Borough of Brent and the City of Westminster) had made out-of-area final offers of private rented accommodation to two housing applicants. Ms Adam, who had applied to Westminster, was a homeless divorced woman with three children; and Mr Alibkhiet, who had applied to Brent, was an Eritrean national who had been given leave to remain in the UK. Both sought a suitability review regarding the accommodation offered.

The Court of Appeal, ruling in favour of the local authorities, held that local authorities are entitled to take account of the resources available to them, the difficulties of procuring temporary accommodation at affordable prices in their areas, and the practicalities of procuring accommodation in nearby boroughs. It held that if there was available accommodation within the borough, a local authority does not have to offer it to a particular applicant, and that it may be acceptable to retain some accommodation for future applicants who may have particularly pressing needs to remain in the borough. It also held that where a local authority had a lawful housing policy - provided that it implemented that policy correctly - its decision in an individual case would be lawful.

The decision will be welcomed by local authorities, who continue to face pressure on their housing stock.

A copy of the judgment is here.

AR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2018] EWHC 3453 (Admin)

High Court

19 December 2018

The High Court has held that a local authority did not have to provide an EU national with accommodation where he was ineligible for housing assistance.

A Lithuanian national, who had lived in the UK since 2011, became homeless. Following an assault, he was unable to work and had attempted suicide. The local authority (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) concluded that he was not eligible for assistance under the Housing Act 1996 as he did not have a right to reside in the UK. He applied for judicial review of the refusal to provide him with accommodation and support.

The High Court, in refusing the application, held that London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham could not exercise its general power under the Localism Act 2011 to provide an EU national with accommodation where he was ineligible for housing assistance by virtue of the Housing Act 1996. It also held that London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had scarce resources and was entitled to refuse to support the claimant where his connection with the UK was slight and he was entitled to, as a minimum, social assistance and free health care in Lithuania and had family there.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R (on the application of Jaber Al-Ali) v Brent London Borough Council [2018] EWHC 3634 (Admin)

High Court

19 December 2018

The High Court has refused permission for judicial review of a local authority's decision that it did not owe a housing duty to a man who had forged the medical evidence which had formed the basis of his housing application.

A claimant (Mr Jaber Al-Ali) applied to Brent London Borough Council for housing for himself and his family, claiming that they were homeless or threatened with homelessness. He provided medical evidence that stated that his wife had a heart condition and was unable to move house. Brent London Borough Council initially accepted that it had a duty to provide housing, but withdrew this after claiming that the medical evidence had been forged. Mr Jaber Al-Ali applied for permission for judicial review of the decision that Brent London Borough Council did not have a duty to provide housing to him, and that interim accommodation should be provided pending a review of the decision.

The High Court held that Brent London Borough Council had not erred in reaching its decision. It had been entitled to believe that Mr Jaber Al-Ali had sought housing based on fraudulent information. As the claim was without merit, and because Brent London Borough Council had spent significant sums to establish that the claim was fraudulent, Mr Jaber Al-Ali was ordered to pay its costs.

A copy of the judgment is available on request.