Image from Google Jackets

R v Lambeth Borough Council , ex parte Clayhope Properties Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 281 (6321) 14 February 1987, 668-694 (4)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 8 October 1986. Application by the freehold owners of a mansion block of flats , occupied by a mixture of long leaseholders and protected tenants , for judicial review by way of mandamus requiring the council to make mandatory repair grants under Housing Act 1974 ss 71 and 71A. The mansion block was in a bad state of repair and substantial works, especially to the common parts, were required. The grants depended on the execution of works required by notice under Housing Act 1957 s9(1A) and such notices were served on the leaseholders in respect of their flats and on the freehold owners in respect of the flats occupied by protected tenants. The issue was whether these notices were valid. The applicants argued that a flat was part of a building within s18 of the 1957 Act and so it was a house within the meaning of the Act; also the common parts could be regarded as "appurtenances" within s189. The QBD rejected this argument, stating that a flat in a block was not a "house" and comm
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37404 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 4176-1001

QBD 8 October 1986. Application by the freehold owners of a mansion block of flats , occupied by a mixture of long leaseholders and protected tenants , for judicial review by way of mandamus requiring the council to make mandatory repair grants under Housing Act 1974 ss 71 and 71A. The mansion block was in a bad state of repair and substantial works, especially to the common parts, were required. The grants depended on the execution of works required by notice under Housing Act 1957 s9(1A) and such notices were served on the leaseholders in respect of their flats and on the freehold owners in respect of the flats occupied by protected tenants. The issue was whether these notices were valid. The applicants argued that a flat was part of a building within s18 of the 1957 Act and so it was a house within the meaning of the Act; also the common parts could be regarded as "appurtenances" within s189. The QBD rejected this argument, stating that a flat in a block was not a "house" and comm