Bromford Corinthia Housing Association v Mohammed & Anor

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no arguable ground. A tenant’s improved financial position, proposed payments towards rent arrears, or unresolved housing-benefit difficulties do not themselves justify permission where they do not disclose an arguable challenge to the lower court’s decision. A challenge concerning suspension of a possession warrant cannot be used indirectly to reopen the underlying possession order without an arguable basis. Information about changed financial circumstances may instead be given to the landlord, which must decide what step to take.

The tenants occupied residential premises under an assured tenancy. Following rent arrears, the landlord obtained a possession order and a warrant was issued. The tenants made repeated applications to suspend the warrant, relying on burglary losses, insurance difficulties and the cancellation of housing benefit. A District Judge refused a further suspension, and His Honour Judge Fletcher refused permission to appeal. A renewed application to the Court of Appeal followed, with the tenant relying on an improved financial position and proposed payments. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal disclosed any arguable ground.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. No arguable ground. The refusal by the County Court judge was justified. There was no arguable ground capable of supporting an appeal against the refusal to suspend the warrant, and no realistic prospect that the proposed appeal would improve the position.
2. Housing benefit. The tenants had to resolve the position concerning their housing-benefit entitlement. That unresolved dispute was not a concern of the landlord in its capacity as landlord and did not provide an arguable ground for the proposed appeal.
3. Changed financial circumstances. The tenant’s assertion that he could make an immediate payment, followed by a further substantial payment, and would continue paying the rent did not justify permission to appeal. Those matters should be brought promptly to the landlord’s attention, for the landlord to consider what step to take.
4. Underlying possession order. To the extent that the tenants sought indirectly to challenge the possession order itself, the Court of Appeal identified no arguable basis for such a challenge.

Order: application for permission to appeal refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Parker refused the renewed application for permission to appeal on 29 January 2001. He had previously refused the application on the papers on 11 December 2000.
2. Wolverhampton County Court: His Honour Judge Fletcher refused permission to appeal against the refusal of a further application to suspend the possession warrant.
3. District Judge: District Judge Gailey refused the tenants’ further application to suspend the warrant on 25 September 2000.