Agricultural dwelling — Dwelling required for new agricultural worker — Duty of housing authority to provide accommodation for present occupier — Whether duty discharged by policy that accommodation available only for those in priority categories — Application by owner allowed
The applicant company holds a long lease of the Upp Hall Estate, Braughing, Ware, Hertfordshire. On one of the holdings, Warren Farm, there is a cottage occupied by a Mr Cowler, a former agricultural employee. This cottage is required by the applicant to house a tractor driver, a post that cannot be filled until accommodation can be provided. The applicant had applied to the respondent housing authority under section 27 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 requesting the respondents to provide suitable alternative accommodation to Mr Cowler in accordance with its duties under that Act; on June 9 1988 the respondents refused to provide such accommodation. The applicant brought proceedings by way of judicial review to quash that decision and for an order of mandamus to require the authority to provide the accommodation. In respect of a similar application by the applicant’s predecessor in 1987, the respondents had stated in a letter of December 17 1987 that they could not provide accommodation for agricultural workers, who were not in priority categories, because of a shortage of accommodation. In their view, a recommendation of the local agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee that such accommodation should be provided did not outweigh the priority needs of others.
Held Certiorari was granted to quash the respondents’ decision; mandamus was refused.
Section 28(5) and (7) of the 1976 Act imposed specific duties and used strong words in obliging a housing authority to take full account of advice received by a committee and to use “best endeavours to provide suitable alternative accommodation”. The respondents had not paid sufficient regard to those obligations. The letter of December 17 1987 did not show any intent to comply with sections 27-28 of the Act; the respondents had decided that no accommodation should be provided for those not in priority categories and there had been no consideration of the merits of the present application. The applicant was entitled to have his case properly considered on its merits and was entitled to relief even if the respondents might make the same decision on the merits.
Overseas Buyers Ltd v Granadex SA
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 608 considered.
David Matthias (instructed by Stanley Tee & Co, of Bishop’s Stortford) appeared for the applicant; and Geoffrey Stephenson (instructed by the solicitor to East Hertfordshire District Council) appeared for the respondent.
