Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Ltd (Poplar Harca) v Howe [2010] EWHC 1745 (QB) (13 July 2010)

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Ltd (Poplar Harca) v Howe [2010] EWHC 1745 (QB) (13 July 2010)

The rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR; the Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses; the Appellant was not eligible for the cash incentive scheme; the Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable under current law.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1745
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Limited (Poplar HARCA); Appellant/defendant: Stephen Howe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Post Possession Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR Compatibility, Eviction, Joint Tenancy Termination, Public Authority Obligations, Cash Incentive Scheme Eligibility
Housing Law Human Rights Law Public Law Article 8 ECHR Compatibility Eviction Joint Tenancy Termination Public Authority Obligations Cash Incentive Scheme Eligibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Limited (Poplar HARCA)

Respondent/claimant

Stephen Howe

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Post Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the rule in Monk incompatible with Article 8 ECHR?
  2. 2 Did the Respondent act unlawfully or unreasonably in refusing removal expenses and alternative accommodation?
  3. 3 Was the notice to quit unlawful due to failure to consider the Appellant's interests?

Ratio Decidendi

The rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR; the Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses; the Appellant was not eligible for the cash incentive scheme; the Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable under current law.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal denied.
  • Recorder's possession order stands.