Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (aka Acheampong) [2017] EWHC 2094 (QB) (10 August 2017)

Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (aka Acheampong) [2017] EWHC 2094 (QB) (10 August 2017)

At the time of the notice to quit, Ms Bucknall was occupying the property as a dwelling because the Council had accepted the full housing duty and allowed her to remain for an indefinite period; the purpose of her occupation had changed from interim to settled, and the statutory protections of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 applied. The notice to quit was invalid as it did not contain the prescribed particulars required by s.5(1A) PEA.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2094
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Dacorum Borough Council; Defendant (appellant): Ms Chenalee Bucknall (formerly known as Ms Chenalee Acheampong)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court at Watford
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Local Authority Duties, Protection From Eviction, Tenancy and Licence, Possession Proceedings
Housing Law Administrative Law Public Law Homelessness Local Authority Duties Protection From Eviction Tenancy and Licence Possession Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dacorum Borough Council

Claimant (respondent)

Ms Chenalee Bucknall (formerly known as Ms Chenalee Acheampong)

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court at Watford

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Bucknall was occupying the property 'as a dwelling' within the meaning of s.5(1A) Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the time of the notice to quit
  2. 2 Whether the Council's full housing duty under s.193(2) Housing Act 1996 was being performed by allowing continued occupation of the property
  3. 3 Whether the notice to quit was valid given the statutory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the notice to quit, Ms Bucknall was occupying the property as a dwelling because the Council had accepted the full housing duty and allowed her to remain for an indefinite period; the purpose of her occupation had changed from interim to settled, and the statutory protections of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 applied. The notice to quit was invalid as it did not contain the prescribed particulars required by s.5(1A) PEA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession order set aside
  • Council's notice to quit declared invalid for failure to comply with statutory requirements