Waltham Forest v Roberts [2004] EWCA Civ 940 (15 July 2004)

Waltham Forest v Roberts [2004] EWCA Civ 940 (15 July 2004)

The Recorder erred in law by requiring direct evidence from the decision maker to establish inducement and by determining entitlement to housing benefit contrary to the exclusive statutory scheme. The false statement was material and induced the grant of tenancy. Both grounds 1 and 5 for possession were made out. The issue of reasonableness must be remitted for determination by a different judge.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 940
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest; Respondent/defendant: Helena Teresa Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; remitted for determination of reasonableness
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancy, Possession Proceedings, False Statement, Housing Benefit, Judicial Review, Statutory Remedies
Housing Law Administrative Law Landlord and Tenant Secure Tenancy Possession Proceedings False Statement Housing Benefit Judicial Review +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest

Appellant/claimant

Helena Teresa Roberts

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in law in refusing possession under grounds 1 and 5 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder was entitled to determine entitlement to housing benefit contrary to the statutory scheme
  3. 3 Whether the false statement induced the grant of tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by requiring direct evidence from the decision maker to establish inducement and by determining entitlement to housing benefit contrary to the exclusive statutory scheme. The false statement was material and induced the grant of tenancy. Both grounds 1 and 5 for possession were made out. The issue of reasonableness must be remitted for determination by a different judge.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; remitted for determination of reasonableness

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on both grounds for possession under Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985.
  • Matter remitted to a different County Court judge to determine whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession.