Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Ltd (Poplar Harca) v Howe

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Ltd (Poplar Harca) v Howe

The application fails because the rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR; the Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses; the Appellant was not entitled to removal expenses under the cash incentive scheme; the Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable.

Parties
Claimant: Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Limited (Poplar HARCA); Defendant: Stephen Howe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Eviction, Article 8 ECHR, Doctrine of Precedent, Public Law Challenge, Suitability of Alternative Accommodation
Landlord and Tenant Human Rights Eviction Article 8 ECHR Doctrine of Precedent Public Law Challenge Suitability of Alternative Accommodation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Limited (Poplar HARCA)

Claimant

Stephen Howe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule in Hammersmith LBC v Monk is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent failed to follow its own policy or acted unreasonably in refusing removal expenses and in the suitability of alternative accommodation
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing permission to appeal on Human Rights Act and public law grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because the rule in Monk remains binding precedent and is not incompatible with Article 8 ECHR; the Respondent had no legal obligation to provide alternative accommodation or removal expenses; the Appellant was not entitled to removal expenses under the cash incentive scheme; the Recorder's findings were sound and unimpugnable.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused