Forbes v London Borough of Lambeth [2003] EWHC 222 (Admin) (18 February 2003)

Forbes v London Borough of Lambeth [2003] EWHC 222 (Admin) (18 February 2003)

The council's review letter reversed the original decision to seek possession, so there was no extant decision to proceed until March 2001; as a result, the notice relied upon did not set out the reasons for the relevant decision, and the proceedings for possession were not compliant with statutory requirements or the Human Rights Act.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 222 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alan Forbes; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Lambeth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment After Appeal and Judicial Review Hearing
Outcome
appeal allowed; possession refused; proceedings dismissed; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Introductory Tenancy, Possession Proceedings, Judicial Review, Notice Requirements, Review Procedure, Human Rights Act Compliance
Housing Law Public Law Human Rights Introductory Tenancy Possession Proceedings Judicial Review Notice Requirements Review Procedure +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

Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment After Appeal and Judicial Review Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council's review letter reversed the original decision to seek possession, requiring a new notice under section 128 of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the reasons for possession proceedings must be set out in a notice corresponding to the actual decision to seek possession
  3. 3 Whether the process complied with Articles 6 and 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The council's review letter reversed the original decision to seek possession, so there was no extant decision to proceed until March 2001; as a result, the notice relied upon did not set out the reasons for the relevant decision, and the proceedings for possession were not compliant with statutory requirements or the Human Rights Act.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; possession refused; proceedings dismissed; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Recorder's order varied to refusal of possession and dismissal of proceedings
  • No order for possession to be made