Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (aka Acheampong)

Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (aka Acheampong)

At the time of the notice to quit, Ms Bucknall was occupying the property as a dwelling within the meaning of s.5(1A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The purpose of her occupation had changed following the Council's acceptance of the full housing duty and its offer for her to remain for an indefinite period. The notice to quit was deficient as it did not contain the statutory particulars required when the property is occupied as a dwelling.

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
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Protection From Eviction, Local Authority Duties, Possession Proceedings
Housing Law Administrative Law Homelessness Protection From Eviction Local Authority Duties 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dacorum Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

Ms Chenalee Bucknall (formerly known as Ms Chenalee Acheampong)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Bucknall was occupying the property 'as a dwelling' within the meaning of s.5(1A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the time of the notice to quit
  2. 2 Whether the Council was performing its interim or full housing duty under the Housing Act 1996 at the relevant time
  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 within the meaning of s.5(1A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The purpose of her occupation had changed following the Council's acceptance of the full housing duty and its offer for her to remain for an indefinite period. The notice to quit was deficient as it did not contain the statutory particulars required when the property is occupied as a dwelling.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession order set aside due to invalid notice to quit; Council's notice did not comply with statutory requirements under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.