Forbes v London Borough of Lambeth

Forbes v London Borough of Lambeth

The review letter sent by the Council to the tenant did not confirm the original decision to seek possession but reversed it; therefore, there was no extant decision to proceed until the March 2001 letter. The notice relied upon did not set out the reasons for the relevant decision to apply for possession, and the statutory requirements were not met. The appeal is allowed and the possession proceedings are dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alan Forbes; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Lambeth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil (housing/administrative) / Appeal and Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; possession proceedings dismissed; judicial review application dismissed as unnecessary.
Legal Topics
Introductory Tenancies, Possession Proceedings, Judicial Review, Notice Requirements, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Housing Law Administrative Law Human Rights Introductory Tenancies Possession Proceedings Judicial Review Notice Requirements Article 6 ECHR +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Forbes

Appellant/claimant

London Borough of Lambeth

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (housing/administrative) / Appeal and Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's review letter reversed or confirmed the original decision to seek possession
  2. 2 Whether a new notice was required under section 128(3) of the Housing Act 1996 after the review
  3. 3 Whether the reasons for possession proceedings had changed, requiring a new notice and review opportunity

Ratio Decidendi

The review letter sent by the Council to the tenant did not confirm the original decision to seek possession but reversed it; therefore, there was no extant decision to proceed until the March 2001 letter. The notice relied upon did not set out the reasons for the relevant decision to apply for possession, and the statutory requirements were not met. The appeal is allowed and the possession proceedings are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; possession proceedings dismissed; judicial review application dismissed as unnecessary.

Orders

  • Recorder's order varied to refusal of possession and dismissal of proceedings.
  • No order quashing the Council's decision as it was unnecessary.