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 application was refused because the rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR under current domestic law. The Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses, and its actions were reasonable and in accordance with policy. The Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1745 (QB)
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 (housing Possession) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Permission to Appeal Order of Recorder
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR, Doctrine of Precedent, Public Authority Obligations, Suitability of Alternative Accommodation, Cash Incentive Schemes
Housing Law Human Rights Law Public Law Possession Proceedings Article 8 ECHR Doctrine of Precedent Public Authority Obligations Suitability of Alternative Accommodation +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 4 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 (housing Possession) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Permission to Appeal Order of Recorder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule in Hammersmith LBC v Monk is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent failed to consider the Appellant's interests or follow its own policies in offering alternative accommodation
  3. 3 Whether refusal to pay removal expenses rendered alternative accommodation unsuitable

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR under current domestic law. The Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses, and its actions were reasonable and in accordance with policy. The Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.
  • No order for reconsideration of the possession order.