Julie Hickey v Haringey London Borough Council
Julie Hickey v Haringey London Borough Council
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 373, 10 April 2006. Considers what was important for the purposes of the exception to the creation of a secure tenancy in the Housing Act 1985 Sched 1 para 6 in deciding whether a property had been leased with vacant position. Appeal by HI against a possession order made in favour of HA. A private landlord had a leased a flat to HA with vacant possession for use by it as temporary housing in accordance with Sched 1 para 6 of the Act. HA had granted a sub-tenancy to HI of a flat whose lease provided for the lessor to obtain possession at the end of the term. HA commenced possession proceedings against HI due to rent arrears. The judge made a possession order deciding that the exception in sched 1 para 6 applied and that HI did not have a secure tenancy. HI contended that the exception did not apply as neither the vacant possession requirements in paras 6(a) and 6(b) had been fulfilled. "Held": appeal allowed. The position between the lessor and HA was the important issue in deciding whether the flat had a lease with vacant possession. HI's actual occupation at any time was irrelevant
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6(A)
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6 (B)
HICKEY V HARINGEY LBC
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 373, 10 April 2006. Considers what was important for the purposes of the exception to the creation of a secure tenancy in the Housing Act 1985 Sched 1 para 6 in deciding whether a property had been leased with vacant position. Appeal by HI against a possession order made in favour of HA. A private landlord had a leased a flat to HA with vacant possession for use by it as temporary housing in accordance with Sched 1 para 6 of the Act. HA had granted a sub-tenancy to HI of a flat whose lease provided for the lessor to obtain possession at the end of the term. HA commenced possession proceedings against HI due to rent arrears. The judge made a possession order deciding that the exception in sched 1 para 6 applied and that HI did not have a secure tenancy. HI contended that the exception did not apply as neither the vacant possession requirements in paras 6(a) and 6(b) had been fulfilled. "Held": appeal allowed. The position between the lessor and HA was the important issue in deciding whether the flat had a lease with vacant possession. HI's actual occupation at any time was irrelevant
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6(A)
HOUSING ACT 1985 SCHED 1 PARA 6 (B)
HICKEY V HARINGEY LBC
England and Wales--1543-