000			01683cad a22002175a 4500
001			L138144
008			070518s2007 xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u138144
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aRiverside Housing Association Limited (Appellants) V White (FC) and Another (FC) (Respondents) _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_aR appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal's decision (L136334) that rent increases implemented upon W were invalid. The appeal had been allowed on ground that the notices issued did not conform to the contractual rent variation date in the tenancy agreement. The Lords noted three aspects of this case which set it apart from most cases of this type. The tenancies were not of the standard commercial type, as the landlord was a registered charity and housing association. W were therefore most likely poorly off individuals with little experience of legal matters. The drafting of the clauses in the tenancy agreement were also of a unique type. "Held": The appeal was allowed. It was found that the contract's clauses regarding the date of rent increases were not binding.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aRIVERSIDE HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD V WHITE AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aGARY WHITE AND ANOTHER V RIVERSIDE HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD
650	2	4	_aUNITED SCIENTIFIC HOLDINGS LTD V BURNLEY BC
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCY RENT REVIEW
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/river-1.htm _zView the article free of charge at www.publications.paliament.uk
942			_n0
999			_c78800 _d78800