Image from Google Jackets

Ali and Amer v Sandwell MBC

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1990) 60 PCR 374-379(6)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: LT 23 March 1990. The question at issue was whether the second claimant (Am) occupied, during the ` qualifying period ` (10 October 1982 - 9 October 1984), a house classed as unfit for human habitation and therefore compulsorily purchased, so as to qualify for the owner occupiers supplement payable under Housing Act 1985 Sched 24 , in addition to site value . If not, whether 50% of the supplement could still be paid to him. It was agreed that site value was £500 and the owner occupiers supplement £6,500. The council had paid half the site value to each claimant and half the supplement to the first claimant (Al) on the grounds that only he had been in occupation for the whole of the period, and that Am had not. Am challenged this. The house had been purchased in 1962 by the two claimants as joint tenants, but in August 1985 an order of severance was served and a statutory trust for sale under Law of Property Act 1925 came into operation. The legal estates were therefore vested in the
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43496 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 42051-1001

LT 23 March 1990. The question at issue was whether the second claimant (Am) occupied, during the ` qualifying period ` (10 October 1982 - 9 October 1984), a house classed as unfit for human habitation and therefore compulsorily purchased, so as to qualify for the owner occupiers supplement payable under Housing Act 1985 Sched 24 , in addition to site value . If not, whether 50% of the supplement could still be paid to him. It was agreed that site value was £500 and the owner occupiers supplement £6,500. The council had paid half the site value to each claimant and half the supplement to the first claimant (Al) on the grounds that only he had been in occupation for the whole of the period, and that Am had not. Am challenged this. The house had been purchased in 1962 by the two claimants as joint tenants, but in August 1985 an order of severance was served and a statutory trust for sale under Law of Property Act 1925 came into operation. The legal estates were therefore vested in the