Akram v Adam

On an application for permission to appeal, permission may be granted where the proposed ground raises serious, properly arguable issues, even though the court does not say that the appeal will necessarily succeed. The judgment identified arguable questions under the Rent Act 1977 concerning possession, alternative accommodation and access for building works. In particular, it was arguable that a court could not compel a statutory tenant to provide access without tenant consent, satisfaction of the statutory condition governing entry for works, or another identifiable statutory or common-law power.

The landlord sought possession of a ground-floor room occupied under a statutory tenancy governed by the Rent Act 1977. The proposed alternative accommodation was a self-contained flat to be created by building works within the property.

The Colchester County Court declared the proposals reasonable and later ordered that the revised accommodation be treated as acceptable, requiring the tenant to provide access for the works. The tenant applied for permission to appeal, challenging the legal basis for the access order and asserting that the accommodation would not be fit for human habitation. The second ground was abandoned.

1. Application allowed. Permission to appeal was granted on the first ground only. The court did not determine that the appeal would succeed.
2. Permission was appropriate because the challenge to the access order raised serious, properly arguable issues. The court identified four matters supporting that conclusion.
3. First, in January 2002 no suitable alternative accommodation existed which would have enabled an order for possession under section 98(1) of the Rent Act 1977.
4. Secondly, the tenant had not consented to access for the building works. Thirdly, the condition in section 116(3) was not satisfied, since the works had not been shown to fall within an approved grant application of the kind specified by that subsection.
5. Fourthly, the court could find no statutory or common-law basis for ordering the tenant to give the landlord, his agents or contractors access to carry out the proposed works. The tenant’s challenge to that order was therefore properly arguable.
6. The applicant sensibly conceded that the second ground would not be pursued. Permission was accordingly confined to the first ground.

• Colchester County Court: declared the proposed alternative accommodation reasonable and later ordered that the revised proposal be treated as acceptable alternative accommodation, requiring the statutory tenant to provide access for the works.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the application and granted permission to appeal on the access-order ground only. The second ground was abandoned.