Mohamed v Manek and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Henry and Lord Justice Auld
Housing - homelessness - temporary accommodation - eviction protection not available
The provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 had no application to temporary housing arranged by local councils for homeless persons. An applicant claiming to be homeless and in priority need given bed and breakfast hotel accommodation while his housing authority carried out inquiries was not within the protection given by section 3.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments allowing an appeal by Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council from the order of Judge Phelan in West London County Court on October 14, 1994, that had granted the applicant, Ezzeldin Amr Mohamed, an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendants, Mr V Manek, the owner of the Thames Hotel, West Kensington, and the council from evicting him from his hotel room.
Section 3 of the 1977 Act, as amended by section 31 of the Housing Act 1988, provides: "(1) Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is neither a statutorily protected tenancy nor an excluded tenancy and (a) the tenancy … has come to an end, but the occupier continues to reside in the premises or part of them, it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises…"
By section 3A(8), as inserted: "A tenancy or licence is excluded if it confers rights of occupation in a hostel, within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985, which is provided by (a) the council of a … London borough…"
Mr Timothy Straker for the council; Mr Terence Gallivan for the applicant; Mr Manek did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE AULD said that the applicant had applied under section 65 of the Housing Act 1985 on October 3, 1994, for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. While making inquiries under section 63 the council, pursuant to its duty under that section, arranged the hotel accommodation, making plain in writing to the applicant that his occupation was to be temporary and subject to stringent conditions.
By October 6 the council had completed its investigation, concluding that the applicant was homeless but not in priority need. It wrote to the applicant that "your temporary accommodation will be terminated on October...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desnousse v Newham London Borough Council and Others
...that the 1977 Act does not apply in this situation, and that this court has so decided in a previous decision: Mohamed v. Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (1995) 27 HLR 439 , which I will refer to as Mohamed v. Manek. The judge so held. The Appellant argues that this i......
-
WB (a protected party through her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v W District Council
...by the argument that we should not disturb what has been understood to be the law since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mohamed v Manek (1995) 94 LGR 211, followed in Desnousse v Newham London BC [2006] EWCA Civ 547, [2007] 2 All ER 218, [2006] QB 831. There is no question of Parli......
-
Dacorum Borough Council (Claimant v Ms Chenalee Bucknall (formerly known as Ms Chenalee Acheampong) (Defendant
...decided before the House of Lords decisions in Awua and Aweys. At the time, it was the most recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Mohamed v Manek (1995) 94 LGR 211 which was authority for the principle that accommodation provided pursuant to the interim housing duty was not occupied as......