Court granting respondents possession of appellant’s premises – Whether judge failing to consider respondents’ duty to rehouse appellant as unintentionally homeless – Whether order unreasonable – Appeal dismissed
The respondent local authority sought possession of the appellant’s premises, pursuant to Ground 5 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. It was not disputed that the respondents had been induced into granting the tenancy by a false statement made by the appellant. On 15 October 1998 the county court granted the respondents possession of the premises. The judge held that Ground 5 of Schedule 2 had been established and that it was reasonable to make such an order. The appellant appealed on the ground that, in determining whether it was reasonable to make the order, the judge had failed to take into account whether the local authority would, if a possession order were made, have a duty to rehouse the appellant as being unintentionally homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
It was not for the court to make a pre-emptive decision on the possible outcome of an application that might, or might not, be made to the local authority. Entitlement to Part VII accommodation was confined to the judgment of the local authority and it was not for the court to anticipate the outcome of an authority’s decision for the purpose of the possession action. The judge was well aware of the self-evident consequence of a possession order. The legal and practical consequences of homelessness, however, were not before the court, nor need they have been, as they were for the local authority to determine if and when the appellant applied to be rehoused. Had it been manifest that, upon eviction, a Part VII application for rehousing would have succeeded, the judge could have taken the issue of homelessness into consideration when assessing the reasonableness of the order. However, that was not the position in the present case: Rushcliffe Borough Council v Watson (1991) 24 HLR 124 applied.
Alper Riza QC and Bin Saad Mustafa (instructed by John Itsagwede & Co) appeared for the appellant; Thomas Cosgrove (instructed by the solicitor to Lewisham London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
