Source: http://limelegal.co.uk/hlwemails/2020/HLW13052020.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 15:00:15
Document Index: 398697188

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 55', 'art 51', 'art 51', 'art 1', 'art 3']

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 May 2020 that the Government’s guidelines to the public concerning the coronavirus pandemic had been amended, the HMCLG has updated its guidance to local authorities. For the guidance, click here.
The Domestic Abuse Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020. For the bill as introduced, click here. For the second reading debate, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.
Absolute prohibitions on alterations in leases: Supreme Court judgment
On 6 May 2020 in Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020] UKSC 18, the Supreme Court dismissed a landlord’s appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The case concerned a block of flats, let to tenants on long leases. Each lease contained an absolute prohibition against certain alterations. One tenant requested landlord’s consent to remove a substantial part of a load-bearing wall which would otherwise be in breach of the prohibition. The landlord decided to grant a licence to carry out the works. Dr Duval, another tenant, brought proceedings on the basis that the landlord, who had an obligation to enforce certain lease covenants (including the absolute prohibition mentioned above), could not grant the tenant licence to breach its lease. To do so would be a breach of the landlord’s covenant. The Supreme Court held that the complainant tenant is entitled, on provision of security, to require the landlord to enforce the prohibition as an absolute covenant. It would not give practical content to the obligation if the landlord had the right to vary or modify the absolute covenant or to authorise what would otherwise be a breach of it. For the judgment, click here. For the Supreme Court’s summary, click here.
Combustible cladding in residential buildings
On 6 May 2020 the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee published the findings of a survey into the progress of remediation work to improve fire safety in residential buildings. The Committee says the survey found that residents continue to face bills of thousands of pounds for remedial or safety measures for a range of issues including combustible cladding, inadequate fire breaks and timber balconies or walkways. Some residents were still having to pay for round the clock fire watches, facing higher insurance premiums or increased service charges. Respondents called for the Government to go further in its support than the £1 billion Building Safety Fund announced in the 2020 Spring Budget, and pledge to ensure that all forms of dangerous cladding should be removed and other safety defects dealt with. For a summary of the survey findings, click here. For more details of the Committee’s inquiry into the remediation work, click here.
Homelessness and rough sleeping: impact of Covid-19
On 11 May 2020 the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee held a session examining the impact of Covid-19 on homelessness and rough sleeping. The session investigated the short term financial impact of measures such as the ‘Everyone In’ programme on local authorities. It also looked at the long-term implications, particularly in ensuring an effective exit strategy that includes adequate provision for all those in temporary accommodation or hostels and sufficient funding for local authorities, and addresses potential legal barriers for individuals accessing homelessness support. During the session the Committee questioned Luke Hall MP, Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing. For the written evidence submitted to the Committee, click here.
On 10 May 2020 The Guardian reported that a letter signed by at least 4,000 Labour members, backed by Momentum, called on Sir Keir Starmer to back an immediate cancellation of rents for those whose income is affected by the coronavirus crisis, rather than pursue the Labour Party’s current policy of supporting an extension of the three-month ban on evictions and giving tenants up to two years to pay arrears. For the report, click here. For a report in The Guardian concerning Labour’s call for an extension of the ban on evictions, click here. For an article on the Nearly Legal website explaining Labour’s policy, click here.
£5.4 million funding to support legal advice sector
On 4 May 2020 the Ministry of Justice announced that £5.4 million of new funding will be distributed to not for profit organisations and law centres across England and Wales so that they might assist people seeking help with housing, debt, discrimination and employment problems. For the announcement, click here.
Help for survivors of domestic abuse and others
On 2 May 2020 the Communities Secretary announced a change to rules which will mean that those fleeing domestic abuse and as a result facing homelessness will be automatically considered as priority by their council for housing. It was also announced that there would be £76 million extra funding to support survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence and vulnerable children and their families and victims of modern slavery. The funding will include £10 million for domestic abuse accommodation services. For the announcement, click here. On 7 May 2020 the Communities Secretary gave details of how domestic abuse charities can access the £10 million fund. For that announcement, click here. For the prospectus for prospective bidders explaining how the assessment process will work, click here.
Tackling domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: Local Government Association
On 11 May 2020 the Local Government Association published a document providing a range of resources which offer help, guidance and support to tackle domestic abuse. It includes a brief overview of domestic abuse and how councils can provide help and support to domestic abuse victims during the COVID-19 pandemic, and tackle perpetrators’ abusive behaviour. For the document, click here.
Funding for safe accommodation of domestic abuse victims during coronavirus lockdown – London
On 4 May 2020 the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced a further £1.5million emergency response fund to provide victims of domestic abuse with safe accommodation and support if they need to flee their homes during the coronavirus pandemic. For the announcement, click here.
Help to Buy (equity loan scheme) statistics: data to 31 December 2019
On 7 May 2020 the MHCLG published statistics showing cumulative sales since the launch of the Help to Buy (equity loan) scheme on 1 April 2013. The statistics show:
Since the launch of the scheme (1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019), 263,297 properties were bought with an equity loan.
The total value of these equity loans was £15.34 billion, with the value of the properties sold under the scheme totalling £70.26 billion.
Most of the home purchases in the scheme were made by first-time buyers, accounting for 214,064 (81 per cent) of total purchases.
The mean purchase price of a property bought under the scheme was £266,849, with buyers using a mean equity loan of £58,258.
In London, the maximum equity loan was increased from 20 per cent to 40 per cent in February 2016; since then to 31 December 2019, there were 18,807 completions in London, of which 16,486 were made with an equity loan higher than 20 per cent.
Help to Buy: ISA Scheme Quarterly Statistics: data to 31 December 2019
On 7 May 2020 HM Treasury published official statistics on the Government’s Help to Buy: ISA scheme. The key points are:
Since the launch of the scheme on 1 December 2015, 304,048 property completions have been supported by the scheme.
401,017 bonuses have been paid through the scheme with an average bonus value of £986.
The mean value of a property purchased through the scheme is £173,711 compared to an average first-time buyer house price of £197,384 and a national average house price of £234,742.
Guidance for substance misuse and homelessness services: COVID-19 – Wales
On 7 May 2020 the Welsh Government published updated guidance on what substance misuse and homelessness services need to do about coronavirus (COVID-19). For the guidance, click here.
Dealing with people who are unwilling or unable to self-isolate or follow coronavirus lockdown instructions – Wales
On 28 April 2020 the Welsh Government published guidance on how local authorities and providers of supported and temporary accommodation and hostels must deal with people who are unwilling or unable to self-isolate or follow coronavirus lockdown instructions. For the guidance, click here.
The Property Ombudsman’s annual report for 2019
On 11 May 2020 the Property Ombudsman reported on complaints received in 2019. There were 30,365 enquiries (up 4 per cent on 2018) during the year, of which 5,106 became formal complaints (up 20 per cent on 2018). £2.20 million was returned to consumers in compensatory awards. Agents settled 98 per cent of awards made and 22 agents were expelled from TPO for non-compliance. For the full report, click here. For the press release relating to it, click here
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Layla Moran, would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 18 March 2020 and is due to receive its second reading on 10 July 2020. For the bill as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.
R (Mohamed) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2020] EWHC 1083 (Admin)
In two joined claims for judicial review the Divisional Court considered whether the offence of managing or controlling an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (“HMO”) contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 is a strict liability offence; and whether the offence is a “continuing offence” for the purposes of calculating the time within which a prosecution must be commenced under s.127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
The Claimants in both actions were husband and wife and directors of property companies operating, and owners of property, in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The Council were responsible for the prosecution of offences under the Housing Act 2004 relating to HMOs.
On 6 January 2017 summonses alleging offences against the Claimants were issued in the magistrates’ court. There was then a period of correspondence between the Claimants and the Council. In July 2017 the Council invited the Claimants to an interview under caution. The Claimants sought judicial review of that decision. Permission to proceed by way of judicial review was granted on 20 December 2019.
In the meantime, the criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court had progressed. A preliminary issue was heard before a district judge about whether the summonses were lawfully issued. It was contended that there was insufficient information to justify the issue of the summonses. On 12 January 2019 the judge delivered a written judgment and held that the summonses were lawfully issued. He held that even if there had been a failure to provide sufficient information the criminal proceedings would not have been a nullity, and that the summonses were in time because the offence under s.72(1) of the 2004 Act was a continuing offence being committed each day the person who has control of or who is managing the HMO does not have the licence.
The Claimants issued a further claim for judicial review of the decision. On 4 September 2019 the Claimants were granted permission to apply for judicial review on two grounds: (1) the summonses were not lawfully issued and (2) the summonses were out of time.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government appeared as an intervener.
Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 introduced licensing schemes for HMOs operated by local housing authorities. Whether premises qualify as an HMO is governed by ss.254-260 of the 2004 Act.
There are two types of licensing regimes for HMOs: mandatory and additional licensing. Subject to exceptions, every HMO to which Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 applies must be licensed: s.61(1). Secondary legislation prescribes descriptions of HMOs to which the mandatory licensing scheme applies. By s.72(1) a person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing an HMO which is required to be licensed under Part 2 but is not so licensed. A person who commits such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine: s.72(7).
The Divisional Court was satisfied that the Council provided sufficient information to justify the issue of summonses by the magistrates’ court. The schedule provided described the offence charged in ordinary language and gave such particulars as were necessary to give reasonable information of the nature of the charge and the relevant legislation which created the offence was identified.
As to submission made on behalf of the Claimant that the offence under s.72(1) required "mens rea" the Court found that it was plain that there is no requirement to prove that the defendant knew that the property he had control of or managed was a HMO, and therefore was required to be licensed. The Court gave seven reasons for that conclusion including the fact that the other offences created by s.72 used the word “knowingly” and s.72(1) did not, and the existence of a defence of reasonable excuse in s.72(5).
As to whether the summons was “in time” for the purposes of s.127 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 it was common ground that the offence was a “continuing offence”. This meant that every day that a person was managing or in control of a HMO which required to be licensed but was not licensed was a new offence. The summonses were in time.
The claim was dismissed on all grounds.
Summary by Alice Richardson, barrister, Trinity Chambers. For the full judgment, click here.
On 11 May 2020 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Arkin v Marshall in which the appellant challenged the lawfulness, extent and effect of the 90 day stay of Part 55 possession proceedings under Practice Direction 51Z.
3. For the avoidance of doubt, claims for injunctive relief are not subject to the stay in paragraph 2.”
An amended version came into effect on 20 April 2020. Para 2A was inserted, which reads:
The parties agreed directions on 26 March 2020. Those directions were incorporated in an order sealed by His Honour Judge Parfitt on 27 March 2020 – the day that PD 51Z came into force.
The Respondent took the view that the effect of paragraph 2 of PD 51Z was to discharge the parties of the obligation to take any of the steps required by the agreed directions within the 90-day period. The Appellant did not accept that the stay applied to the proceedings at all, but he contended that if it did it could and should be lifted.
(a) Was the making of PD 51Z properly authorised by CPR Part 51.2 as a pilot
scheme “for assessing the use of new practices and procedures in
connection with proceedings”?
(b) Was PD 51Z inconsistent with or rendered unlawful by the provisions of the
Coronavirus Act 2020?
This issue was raised because of the unusual procedural history of the case. The Respondent argued that a challenge to the vires of PD 51Z should not be entertained both because it had not been raised below and, more fundamentally, because it should have been advanced by way of judicial review. The Court held that in the circumstances of this case those issues had not produced any real unfairness nor created any insuperable difficulty. It was inevitable that permission to apply for judicial review would have been granted and there was a strong public interest in an early and authoritative ruling as to the validity of PD 51Z. Having had full argument on the issue, the Court was in a position to give such a ruling despite the imperfections in the procedural history, and should do so.
The Court concluded that the stay of possession proceedings was being trialled in order to assess whether it is effective to ensure that the administration of justice, specifically the ongoing conduct of possession proceedings in a pandemic, and the enforcement of possession orders in a pandemic, does not endanger public health.
The Appellant’s submission was that s.81 of and schedule 29 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, (the new three-month notice periods) were inconsistent with the PD. The Court did not agree, holding that “these submissions are not well founded. Imposing notice requirements and giving power to lift them are one thing; a blanket stay of all possession proceedings is another. They are not inconsistent…”
Having considered the authorities, the Court of Appeal held that the short delay to possession litigation enshrined in PD 51Z was amply justified by the exceptional circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic. There was a need to ensure that neither the administration of justice nor the enforcement of possession orders endanger public health by the unnecessary transmission of the virus.
Moreover, it was not seriously suggested that PD 51Z did not have the clear authorisation of Parliament, CPR Part 51.2 was authorised by primary legislation in the form of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and section 5 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997.
As to that issue the Court held that when paragraph 2A(c) says that paragraph 2 does not apply to “an application for” agreed case management directions, it means what it says – that is, that if the parties agree directions, they can apply to the court to have the directions in question embodied in an order. There was an obvious value in the parties agreeing, and obtaining the court’s endorsement of, directions which will take effect on a date or dates post-dating the end of the stay: they will come out of the end of the stay with an already-established timetable, and avoid a potential rush to make applications immediately the stay is lifted.
Further there was also value in the parties agreeing, and obtaining the court’s endorsement of, directions which take effect during the stay albeit they cannot be enforced during its currency.
The second issue was whether the courts had a general discretion to lift the stay imposed by paragraph 2 taking into account: (a) the impossibility of implicitly disapplying CPR Part 3.1(1) and (2)(f) and section 49(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, (b) the cases that show that other pilot schemes have been disapplied in particular cases, and (c) the fact that, if the parties can agree to disapply the stay by agreeing directions, the court must be able to do so too.
Thus, while the Court would not go so far as to say that there could be no circumstances in which it would be proper for a judge to order that the stay imposed by PD 51Z should be lifted, the Court had great difficulty in envisaging such a case.
Summary by Alice Richardson, barrister, Trinity Chambers. For the full judgment, click here
Litigation in lockdown: the housing cases receiving pandemic priority Kuljit Bhogal, Andy Lane and Sam Fowles Local Government Lawyer 29 April 2020 – to read the article, click here
On front doors and on going through them Giles Peaker Nearly Legal 3 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Update: Building Safety Fund Devonshires 4 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Priority need for those homeless because of domestic abuse Mark Prichard Blog 4 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Understanding entrenched rough sleeping during COVID-19 Joe Prestidge Homeless Link 4 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect Giles Peaker Nearly Legal 4 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
How a hotel is stemming the tide of Covid-19 among rough sleepers Tom Wall The Guardian 5 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Injunctions in Housing Law Cases James McHugh and Morgan Brien Local Government Lawyer 5 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Renters are facing a cliff edge: government must act now Ruth Ehrlich Shelter Blog 6 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Tax implications of the temporary letting of new residential units Andrew Sneddon Trowers & Hamlins 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
'I might have died if they hadn't rescued me': life inside the new hotels for the homeless Amelia Gentleman The Guardian 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Notes for noting Giles Peaker Nearly Legal 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
COVID-19: Houses in multiple occupation Sonia Rai and Ben Maltz Local Government Lawyer 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Keeping tenants safe under the new building safety regime – challenges for local authorities (and their ALMOs) Ian Doolittle Trowers & Hamlins 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Battle of the fire doors Lynn James Trowers & Hamlins 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Article 8 breaches and local authority statutory duties Arianna Kelly Local Government Lawyer 7 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
A five point plan Nearly Legal 9 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Article 1, Protocol No.1 – a brief introduction Nearly Legal 10 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
I can’t go for that. Nooo. No can do. [Duvall case] Giles Peaker Nearly Legal 10 May 2020 – to read the article, click here
“Choices are so much easier when you have a secure home or a sunny garden in which to relax” Douglas Johnson Legal Action May 2020 – to read the article, click here
Committee stage commences for the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill (see Housing Laws in the Pipeline)
Housing Projects and Strategy Development Manager