News

The High Court has granted permission to appeal in a case concerning the security of tenure of those accommodated under the government initiative to accommodate rough sleepers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Mr Ibrahim, who has NRPF (No Recourse to Public Funds), approached the first Defendant (D1) local authority for accommodation having been rough sleeping in May 2020. He was accommodated in a self-contained flat which was managed by the second Defendant (D2). He signed an agreement with D1 which confirmed that he was entitled to be given 48 hours’ notice to vacate. Two days later he was informed by representatives of both D1 and D2 that he must move to a hotel that day, without notice, and representatives of D1 and D2 attended the accommodation in attempts to persuade him to do so.

An application for an urgent injunction to prevent the eviction together with a claim for damages for unlawful eviction and harassment was lodged at the County Court.

The legal basis of the claim was that ss79-81 of the Housing Act 1985 were satisfied and none of the exclusions set out in schedule 2 of the Act applied. Accordingly, a secure licence had arisen which could not be terminated without the appropriate notice being served and the court being persuaded that a statutory ground for possession was established and it was reasonable to grant a possession order. It was also argued that the attempted eviction was in breach of the licence agreement and common law notice requirements.

An ex-parte injunction was granted pending a return hearing. By the time of the return hearing written notice had been provided and the period had expired. At the return hearing the injunction was discharged on the basis that the D1 had offered alternative temporary accommodation and thus the balance of convenience lay in favour of not continuing with the injunction. HHJ Saunders also made a finding of fact that there were no legal relations between the parties.

That finding of fact was appealed on three grounds:

1. The judge exceeded his powers by making a finding in relation to a disputed fact and matter of complex law at an interim hearing without hearing detailed argument and supporting evidence;


2. There was no or insufficient evidence to support the finding; and


3. On the evidence available, the finding was perverse.