Rogers v Islington LBC
Series: Estates Gazette ; [1999] 37 EG 178-183(6)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 July 1999. R was the freehold owner of a building which was let out under individual oral agreements for unspecified periods to up to nine single adults at a time. The council (I) claimed that the property was a house in multiple occupation and served a notice to execute works pursuant to the Housing Act 1985 s352. R appealed against the notice and the recorder upheld this. I appealed and sought clarification of Barnes v Sheffield CC. Held, appeal allowed. The two important factors were: the physical arrangements and the nature of the relationship between the occupiers. In Barnes there were 4 or 5 student occupants who were a preformed group for a predetermined period. Here the occupants came to the property one by one for dissimilar and mostly indefinite periods.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS61238 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 101846-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 30 July 1999. R was the freehold owner of a building which was let out under individual oral agreements for unspecified periods to up to nine single adults at a time. The council (I) claimed that the property was a house in multiple occupation and served a notice to execute works pursuant to the Housing Act 1985 s352. R appealed against the notice and the recorder upheld this. I appealed and sought clarification of Barnes v Sheffield CC. Held, appeal allowed. The two important factors were: the physical arrangements and the nature of the relationship between the occupiers. In Barnes there were 4 or 5 student occupants who were a preformed group for a predetermined period. Here the occupants came to the property one by one for dissimilar and mostly indefinite periods.