Beaney and another v Branchett
Beaney and another v Branchett
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 283(6350) 5 September 1987, 1063-1068(4) .
CA 29 April 1987. An appeal by the tenant(T) against an order for possession granted in the county court, to the landlords(L). T occupied an old cottage which was run down, lacked a bath, hot water and indoor toilet. A demolition order had been made in 1973, but had not been carried out. In 1983, L purchased the property with full knowledge of the order, with the intention of repairing the property and making it their home. In 1984, the building was listed, but the local authority did not immediately determine the demolition order and replace it with a closing order as required under the Housing Act 1985 . This was not done until after L had started possession proceedings. The judge granted possession on the ground that a closing order made in 1986, deprived T of the protection of the Rent Act 1977 , and in effect required the judge to make the order. T appealed. In the CA the judge questioned whether the closing order was "in force" at the material time. It was found not to have bee
LISTED BUILDING
PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
CA 29 April 1987. An appeal by the tenant(T) against an order for possession granted in the county court, to the landlords(L). T occupied an old cottage which was run down, lacked a bath, hot water and indoor toilet. A demolition order had been made in 1973, but had not been carried out. In 1983, L purchased the property with full knowledge of the order, with the intention of repairing the property and making it their home. In 1984, the building was listed, but the local authority did not immediately determine the demolition order and replace it with a closing order as required under the Housing Act 1985 . This was not done until after L had started possession proceedings. The judge granted possession on the ground that a closing order made in 1986, deprived T of the protection of the Rent Act 1977 , and in effect required the judge to make the order. T appealed. In the CA the judge questioned whether the closing order was "in force" at the material time. It was found not to have bee
LISTED BUILDING
PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES