THIS IS A TYPICAL HousingVIEW BULLETIN
Bulletin for Monday July 29
Cases
social security; housing benefit; apportionment; students; liability
R. (NAGHSHBANDI v. CAMDEN L.B.C. & OTHERS
[2002] EWCA Civ 1038
Court of Appeal, Schiemann and Laws, L.JJ. and Jackson J.
The Appellant occupied a property along with his wife, their two children (the eldest of whom was a student) and his mother-in-law. In October 2000, the Appellant applied to the authority for housing benefit. The authority determined that, pursuant to reg. 10(5), Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, the rent payable would be apportioned between all those who were liable to make payments in respect of the property, so as to determine each occupants' eligible rent. The authority accordingly divided the total rent for the property by five, including the Appellant's son in their calculation.
The Appellant applied for judicial review on the ground that, under reg. 48A(1), 1987 Regulations, students were to be treated as not liable to pay rent and therefore that the authority should have divided the total rent for the property by four. The authority contended that the Appellant's son was liable to make payments in respect of his occupation of the property within reg.10(5) and, whether or not he was to be treated as so liable for the purposes of another regulation was irrelevant.
The High Court dismissed the application (See localview wk/comm. October 29, 2002), holding that the fact that a person occupying the property is a student merely disqualifies him from entitlement to housing benefit by operation of reg. 48A(1); it does not exempt him from apportionment under reg. 10(5).
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. Housing benefit is payable in respect of liability to pay rent. When calculating the amount of liability, the rent of shared accommodation is apportioned among the occupants. Where five people share accommodation and one of them is a student not eligible for housing benefit, the liability in respect of rent of one of the other occupants claiming housing benefit is to be taken as one fifth of the rent, not one quarter. Accordingly, the authority had properly divided the total rent for the property between five.
sale of land; specific performance; disposals; ultra vires; summary judgement
GREENACRE PROPERTIES LTD v. TOWER HAMLETS L.B.C.
July 23, 2002: Chancery Division, Strauss Q.C.
The authority owned a disused hostel which they intended to use for the purpose of public housing. By a written agreement of February 20, 1998, the Claimant agreed to purchase the hostel and to convert it into 82 residential properties, 24 of which would be made available to the authority for a period of ten years. The terms of the agreement also provided that the Claimant would use its reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission for the residential development and that either party could rescind the agreement if permission was not obtained. The agreement also provided that completion of the sale should take place on February 20, 1999.
At no point had the authority applied to the Secretary of State for consent for the disposal of the hostel land, contrary to s.32(2), Housing Act 1985 and/or s.123, Local Government Act 1972.
The Claimant applied to the authority for planning permission for the development. The authority refused to grant permission on the basis that the development failed to make adequate provision for social housing. The Claimant submitted revised proposals and entered into negotiations with the authority. On June 8, 2001, the Claimant wrote to the authority stating that - having regard to the failed negotiations - it required completion of the purchase of the hostel. The authority refused to complete.
The Claimant applied to the High Court for summary judgement for specific performance of the agreement. The issues for determination were:
(1) whether the Claimant was entitled to complete the purchase before the grant of planning permission;
(2) whether that entitlement was affected by any failure by the Claimant to use reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission;
(3) whether specific performance should be refused on the ground of delay or because the parties were negotiating terms of a different agreement; and,
(4) whether specific performance should be refused on the basis that the agreement was ultra vires in the absence of consent under either s.32, 1985 Act or s.123, 1972 Act.
The High Court refused to make an order for summary judgement for specific performance on the basis that the failure to acquire ministerial consent under s.32 or s.123 could make the agreement ultra vires.
As to the other issues, however, the court held that if the parties intended that the agreement should be conditional on the grant of planning permission, they should have included an express provision to that effect. In the absence of such provision, the Claimant was entitled to complete the purchase before the grant of permission.
Nor was there an express term that the Claimant should be prevented from completing the purchase if it did not use reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission. In any event, there was no evidence that the Claimant had failed to make reasonable endeavours. There was no basis for refusing specific performance on the ground of delay or because the original development was not going to proceed.
Legislation
housing benefit; social security; students; caring responsibilities; illness
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT (INTERCALATING STUDENTS) REGULATIONS 2002 (S.I.2002 No.1763).
Made: July 10, 2002. In force from: August 1, 2002
Regulation 48A, Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and reg.40C, Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, specify those full-time students who are to be treated as not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling and who are therefore excluded from entitlement to benefits. A student who, for a specified period, ceases to undertake a course because he is caring for another person or is ill is, however, entitled to benefits: reg.48(C)(6), 1987 Regulations, and reg. 40(7), 1992 Regulations.
These Regulations amend both the 1987 and the 1992 Regulations by introducing a maximum, one-year period during which a student may be absent from his course.
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm
housing assistance; living conditions; improvement; repairs; grants
REGULATORY REFORM (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2002 (S.I.2002 No.1860).
Made: July 18, 2002.
This Order makes substantial changes to the system of renovation grants awarded by local authorities to improve the condition of properties in their area and makes consequential amendments and repeals to the Housing Act 1985, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
The Order - save for disabled persons grants - replaces the current grant-aid structure with a new power to provide financial assistance to home-owners for: the acquisition of living accommodation where the authority intend to purchase a person's home or determine that acquisition of new accommodation would confer the same benefit as improving the existing accommodation; the adaptation or improvement of living accommodation; the repair of living accommodation; the demolition of living accommodation; or, the construction of living accommodation to replace accommodation which has been demolished.
Exercise of the power is conditional on an authority publishing their policy regarding the assistance. Where assistance is offered, it may be subject to conditions as to repayment (if the authority determine that the person granted assistance can afford it). Authorities are under a duty to provide written details of any such conditions and to satisfy themselves that the person receiving assistance has obtained appropriate advice concerning his liabilities. The majority of the provisions will come into force on July 19, 2002 save for Art.10, Art.11 and Sched. 3, Art.12 and Sched. 4, Art.13 and Art.15 and Sched. 6 which will take effect in July 2003.
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm
Government and Parliamentary Materials
commencement; commonhold and leasehold reform act; enfranchisement
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002: COMMENCEMENT
Published: July 22, 2002
The government has announced that major provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see localview wk/comm. May 7, 2002) will be brought into force on July 26, 2002. The provisions include, inter alia, s.114 (amendments to collective right to enfranchisement), s.129 (amendments to right to acquire a new lease), and ss.160-161 (managers appointed by leasehold valuation tribunal).
The provisions only apply to leaseholders who initiate the process of purchasing their freehold or a longer lease after July 26, 2002.
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/
commencement; homelessness; guidance; priority needs; allocations
HOMELESSNESS ACT 2002: COMMENCEMENT
Published: July 15, 2002
The government has announced that it intends to bring into force the main homelessness provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002 (see localview wk/comm. March 11, 2002) on July 31, 2002. It is also intended that the provisions of the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation (England) Order 2002 and the majority of the Homelessness Code of Guidance will take effect on that day.
It has been proposed that section 12 (co-operation in certain cases involving children) of the 2002 Act will commence on October 1, 2002 and that provisions on allocations will take effect in January 2003.
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/