Merton London Borough Council are challenging a county court ruling setting aside an order for possession of council premises that had been let under an introductory tenancy.
The council sought possession of the premises three months after the commencement of the tenancy on the grounds that rent arrears totalled £690 and Williams had failed to take up possession of the premises.
The tenant claimed that he had got into arrears because he had been denied housing benefit, although the court was told that benefit had been refused because he had been unable to persuade the housing benefit arm of the council that he had taken up possession of the premises.
The county court set aside the possession order on the basis that neither the councils notice of possession proceedings nor their subsequent review decision appeared to give adequate reasons. The judge also found that there had been no attempt to justify the eviction as being necessary and proportionate in the light of the outstanding claim for housing benefit.
In the Court of Appeal, Merton argued that to require a local authority to provide written and oral evidence of decision-making processes before they are under challenge creates an unnecessary and undesirable burden, which is inconsistent with the presumption that local authority decisions are valid until challenged.
Judgment in the case has been reserved.
Merton London Borough Council v Williams Court of Appeal (Ward and Mance LJJ and Sir Martin Nourse) 22 May 2002.
Mark Lowe QC and Wayne Beglan (instructed by the solicitor to Merton London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; Robert Latham (instructed by Jacqueline Everett & Co) appeared for the respondent.
PLS News 23/5/02
