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

While Harrow LBE v Qazi remains good law, a lower court cannot treat the rule in Hammersmith LBC v Monk as incompatible with Article 8. A seriously arguable compatibility challenge must be dealt with consistently with binding domestic precedent. A landlord’s voluntary assistance with rehousing does not, without more, create a public-law obligation to provide alternative accommodation or fund removal expenses. Alternative accommodation is not unsuitable merely because the occupier cannot afford to move. A cash incentive scheme confined to tenants downsizing does not apply to a person whose tenancy has ended.

The defendant sought permission to appeal against an order for possession of his former home. He and his estranged wife had been joint secure tenants. After the wife served notice to quit, the tenancy ended under the rule in Hammersmith LBC v Monk. The claimant housing association later offered alternative accommodation and waived rent arrears, but refused removal expenses.

The defendant argued that the rule in Monk was incompatible with Article 8 and that the claimant had acted unlawfully by failing to follow its housing policies. He also argued that the alternative accommodation was unsuitable and that he qualified for a cash incentive scheme. The court considered whether these grounds were seriously arguable.

1. Permission refused. The Recorder was entitled to find that there was no seriously arguable case requiring remittal to the High Court.
2. The rule in Hammersmith LBC v Monk, applied through the termination of a joint tenancy by one joint tenant’s valid notice to quit, remained governed by Harrow LBE v Qazi. Unless and until a higher court displaced Qazi, the incompatibility argument could not succeed.
3. The court was bound by the approach to precedent stated in Kay v LB Lambeth. Judges must consider Convention arguments and may express views or grant leave to appeal, but must follow binding domestic precedent. The developing Strasbourg authorities did not entitle this court to depart from that rule.
4. The claimant’s voluntary offers of rehousing did not create a legal obligation to provide accommodation after the defendant’s tenancy had ended. Its cooperation with the council’s common allocation arrangements did not convert that assistance into a public-law duty.
5. The Recorder was entitled to find that the claimant had considered the defendant’s medical condition, had offered accommodation accordingly, and had waived rent arrears. The refusal to fund removal expenses did not make the Zetland Street offer unsuitable or unreasonable. It would be remarkable if a non-tenant could select the accommodation he would accept solely by reference to his financial circumstances.
6. The cash incentive scheme applied to tenants downsizing. As the defendant was no longer a tenant, and the scheme did not otherwise apply to him, the refusal of removal expenses was lawful. All grounds of appeal were rejected.

The judgment itself concerns an application for permission to appeal against the possession order made by Miss Recorder Wright QC on 9 October 2009. Permission was refused.