Our monthly Housing Case Law brings you a roundup of the latest cases and court decisions in one practical update.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Gbadegesin and another [2023] EWHC 2371 (KB)

High Court, 26 September 2023

The High Court has granted a local authority's application for a mandatory injunction against a landlord who had failed to comply with improvement notices served under the Housing Act 2004.

A local housing authority (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham) received a disrepair complaint from a tenant who lived at a property with his wife and children. An inspection of the property revealed numerous problems, including defective locks, heaters and electrical fittings, damp and mould growth, a defective smoke alarm, dilapidated kitchen units and an oven which did not work.

The owner of the property (Mr Gbadegesin) and the estate agency that managed the property were served with improvement notices under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004. Remedial works were required to be completed by September 2022.

However, the works were not completed and Mr Gbadegesin and the estate agency were prosecuted in February 2023 for not complying with the improvement notices.

Following the convictions, the remedial works remained outstanding, so London Borough of Barking and Dagenham issued a Part 8 claim, seeking mandatory injunctive relief to secure compliance with the improvement notices.

The High Court, in granting the injunction, held that Mr Gbadegesin and the estate agency were in knowing and continuing breach of the law. Their disregard of the requirements of the improvement notices meant that the tenant and his family were living in “unsatisfactory, and possibly unsafe, housing conditions”. The disrepair of the property was also likely to be an “actionable breach of both the express and implied terms of the tenancy agreement”.

This ruling provides useful guidance to local authorities regarding when injunctive relief may be granted in situations where a landlord has continually failed to comply with an improvement notice.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R. (on the application of Islam) v Haringey LBC [2022] EWHC 3933 (Admin)

High Court, 18 August 2023

The High Court has held that a local housing authority had been entitled to refuse to place a housing applicant with severe mental health problems in Band A of its allocation scheme.

Mr Islam suffered from serious mental health conditions, including paranoid schizophrenia. From 2008 until 2013, he had lived on his own in a property owned by the London Borough of Haringey, while his wife lived with their children in another property. In 2013 the family moved into private rented accommodation together, but through no fault of their own were evicted in 2015 and became homeless. They moved into another temporary property owned by London Borough of Haringey before moving to a private sector leased property (the lease term completed in August 2022 but was renewed for a further three years).

The family joined London Borough of Haringey’s housing allocation scheme and were placed in Band B, but asked to be moved to Band A under a provision of the allocation scheme, which applied where an applicant had “severe mental health problems” and was unable to cope with living in temporary accommodation. Following a review, London Borough of Haringey upheld its decision to place the family in Band B. The family applied for judicial review of the decision.

The High Court, in refusing the application, held that London Borough of Haringey had been entitled to consider that Mr Islam did not fall within Band A of its housing allocation scheme because, whilst he had severe mental health problems, he was not unable to cope with living in temporary accommodation. He had been living in the same temporary accommodation for the past seven years, with a further three-year renewal pending at the same address, in close proximity to a supportive family network and access to secondary mental health services, if required.

London Borough of Haringey had also considered Mr Islam’s GPs records, which did not show any deterioration in Mr Islam’s mental health. London Borough of Haringey had therefore been entitled to conclude that moving house was not a factor in any deterioration in Mr Islam’s mental health.

A copy of the judgment is here.

SH v London Borough of Southwark: [2023] UKUT 198 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), 7 August 2023

The Upper Tribunal has held that the First-tier Tribunal had applied the correct test as set out in Regulation 7(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 when deciding what were ‘essential’ repairs for a disabled claimant.

In 2008, London Borough of Southwark granted the claimant (SH) a secure tenancy of a ground floor flat in a two-storey building (property 1). SH, who suffered from mental health problems, received housing benefit in respect of her rent.

In 2012, London Borough of Southwark needed to carry out repair works and it provided SH with temporary accommodation in property 2. SH was permitted to occupy property 2 and she was not required to pay rent or any other form of accommodation charge in respect of her occupation of it. She continued to be liable for the rent on property 1, but this was being discharged by way of the payments of housing benefit.

By way of background, Under regulation 7(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 - “Where a claimant has been required to move into temporary accommodation by reason of essential repairs being carried out to the dwelling normally occupied as his home, and is liable to make payments (including payments of mortgage interest or, in Scotland, payments under heritable securities or, in either case, analogous payments) in respect of either (but not both) the dwelling which he normally occupied as his home or the temporary accommodation, he shall be treated as occupying as his home the dwelling in respect of which he is liable to make payments.”

By 2019, London Borough of Southwark had completed all of the repairs and told SH to return to property 1. However, SH did not agree that all of the repairs had been completed and decided to remain in property 2 after submitting a “snagging report” of issues that she considered still needed to be dealt with. SH was also concerned that, due to her mental health difficulties, she would feel vulnerable if she had to return to property 1 before the repairs, such as securing the garden fencing, had been satisfactorily completed. 

Consequently, London Borough of Southwark decided that SH was not occupying property 1 as a home and, as it considered that the repairs had been completed, it determined that regulation 7(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 did not apply and ceased paying housing benefit in respect of property 1. SH appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the repairs had been completed and that there was only some minor “making good” matters that were outstanding, none of which prevented SH from moving back into the property 1. SH appealed.

The Upper Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to come to its decision and that its decision was “free from legal error”. It held that that it would be “very difficult” to envisage a situation where a tenant, even one with the difficult mental health problems that SH had, could not remain in property 1 whilst seemingly straightforward and simple external repairs could be carried out.

A copy of the judgment is here.