Image from Google Jackets

Newham LBC v Hawkins and others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; ([2005] 29 EG 100-105(6)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 451, 22 April 2005. Landlord and tenant case where the local authority (N) allowed tenants in breach of a suspended possession order were allowed to remain as tolerated trespassers so long as the rent was paid satisfactorily. Hawkins (H) was the wife of the original tenant but she fell into arrears with the rent and a suspended possession order was made against her. She continued in occupation with a satisfactory rent account. On her death, N carried out the possession order against H's sons on the grounds that H was a tolerated trespasser and neither she nor her sons had rights of succession to the secure tenancy. The sons appealed on the grounds that N's acceptance of H's continued occupation amounted to a grant of a new secure tenancy. "Held": appeal dismissed. There was no new secure tenancy and therefore no rights of succession for H and her sons. N's actions in accepting H's continued occupancy amounted to forbearance in enforcing the possession order while H's occupation was satisfactory. H had continued as a tolerated trespasser as no action, such as an application under the Housing Act 195 s85(4), had been taken to discharge the possession order.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article L130510 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 130510-1001

[2005] EWCA Civ 451, 22 April 2005. Landlord and tenant case where the local authority (N) allowed tenants in breach of a suspended possession order were allowed to remain as tolerated trespassers so long as the rent was paid satisfactorily. Hawkins (H) was the wife of the original tenant but she fell into arrears with the rent and a suspended possession order was made against her. She continued in occupation with a satisfactory rent account. On her death, N carried out the possession order against H's sons on the grounds that H was a tolerated trespasser and neither she nor her sons had rights of succession to the secure tenancy. The sons appealed on the grounds that N's acceptance of H's continued occupation amounted to a grant of a new secure tenancy. "Held": appeal dismissed. There was no new secure tenancy and therefore no rights of succession for H and her sons. N's actions in accepting H's continued occupancy amounted to forbearance in enforcing the possession order while H's occupation was satisfactory. H had continued as a tolerated trespasser as no action, such as an application under the Housing Act 195 s85(4), had been taken to discharge the possession order.