Multiple occupation
Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [2001] 50 EG 89 (15/12/01)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: CA 4 December 2001. "Reynolds v Brent LBC". Respondent R applied for registration of a house in multiple occupation, but appellant B refused, claiming that R was unfit to manage the house. R was told to appoint a suitable person to manage the property, then apply on his behalf. R appealed. Judge agreed R was unfit to manage the property, but B had not considered imposition of conditions in Housing Act 1985, 348(1)(d). R registered on judge's orders as long as he complied with all statutory requirements of Act. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | 1 | Available | 116058-1001 |
CA 4 December 2001. "Reynolds v Brent LBC". Respondent R applied for registration of a house in multiple occupation, but appellant B refused, claiming that R was unfit to manage the house. R was told to appoint a suitable person to manage the property, then apply on his behalf. R appealed. Judge agreed R was unfit to manage the property, but B had not considered imposition of conditions in Housing Act 1985, 348(1)(d). R registered on judge's orders as long as he complied with all statutory requirements of Act. Appeal allowed.