Image from Google Jackets

Jones and another v Cook and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 42 EG 129-132(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 March 1990. An appeal brought by tenants (C), who had occupied a property since it was let to them on 22 May 1975. At that time the landlord was W, who owned a substantial estate in the area. W died on 14 October 1975 and the plaintiffs, J, are her executors. J required possession on the basis that they were offering C alternative accommodation elsewhere on the estate. The County Court held that J were entitled to occupy the premises on the basis of a certificate issued by the local housing authority on 5 April. The question brought to CA was whether this certificate was valid. The minimum requirement laid down by the Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 for alternative accommodation is that it be similar in rental levels and quality to council housing in the area. The certificate in question said that the property was "similar in extent to council owned dwelling-houses", however in evidence the council said that the average council house in the area was larger than the premises being offere
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43537 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 42262-1001

CA 15 March 1990. An appeal brought by tenants (C), who had occupied a property since it was let to them on 22 May 1975. At that time the landlord was W, who owned a substantial estate in the area. W died on 14 October 1975 and the plaintiffs, J, are her executors. J required possession on the basis that they were offering C alternative accommodation elsewhere on the estate. The County Court held that J were entitled to occupy the premises on the basis of a certificate issued by the local housing authority on 5 April. The question brought to CA was whether this certificate was valid. The minimum requirement laid down by the Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 for alternative accommodation is that it be similar in rental levels and quality to council housing in the area. The certificate in question said that the property was "similar in extent to council owned dwelling-houses", however in evidence the council said that the average council house in the area was larger than the premises being offere