Knowsley Housing Trust v Anita McMullen
Knowsley Housing Trust v Anita McMullen
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 539, 9 May 2006. Considers the validity of a suspended possession order. Appeal by M against a suspended order of possession of her home in favour of K. M, a person deemed disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, lived with her son, a serial young offender. K claimed possession on the grounds that M and predominantly her son had been guilty of nuisance and damage to the house. The judge ruled that the possession order was to be suspended if no further acts of nuisance were committed by M or her son. M argued against the validity of the order on the grounds that she was unable to control her son and that the order should have contained a term requiring K, if it wished to apply for the issue of a warrant of possession, to apply to the court on notice to M for permission to apply."Held": appeal dismissed. No general principle exists that an immediate or suspended order of possession should not be made where a tenant cannot control the nuisance-making behaviour of another member of its household. The judge's order was amended to make K apply to the court on notice to M if it wanted to apply for a warrant of possession.
KNOWSLEY HOUSING TRUST V MCMULLEN
PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL V BRYANT
HOUSING ACT 1988
ST BRICE AND ANOTHER V SOUTHWARK LBC
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 12
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 13
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 14
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 539, 9 May 2006. Considers the validity of a suspended possession order. Appeal by M against a suspended order of possession of her home in favour of K. M, a person deemed disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, lived with her son, a serial young offender. K claimed possession on the grounds that M and predominantly her son had been guilty of nuisance and damage to the house. The judge ruled that the possession order was to be suspended if no further acts of nuisance were committed by M or her son. M argued against the validity of the order on the grounds that she was unable to control her son and that the order should have contained a term requiring K, if it wished to apply for the issue of a warrant of possession, to apply to the court on notice to M for permission to apply."Held": appeal dismissed. No general principle exists that an immediate or suspended order of possession should not be made where a tenant cannot control the nuisance-making behaviour of another member of its household. The judge's order was amended to make K apply to the court on notice to M if it wanted to apply for a warrant of possession.
KNOWSLEY HOUSING TRUST V MCMULLEN
PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL V BRYANT
HOUSING ACT 1988
ST BRICE AND ANOTHER V SOUTHWARK LBC
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 12
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 13
HOUSING ACT 1988 PART II SCHED 2 GROUND 14
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995
England and Wales--1543-