Court of Appeal

Published April 25, 2007

London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell

Before Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Lloyd and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Judgment April 19, 2007

A landlord could issue fresh proceedings against a secure tenant who had failed to pay arrears of rent on time under a previous possession order and had stayed in occupation, rather than seeking to revive that previous order.

The Court of Appeal so stated dismissing the appeal of the tenant, Carol Ann Ansell, also known as Carl Ann Marley, from Judge Birtles, who sitting at the Mayor’s and City of London County Court, on September 22, 2006, ordered her to give possession of 39 Hannay Lane, Crouch End, Hornsey, to her social landlord, London and Quadrant Housing Trust on the basis that the original possession order did not survive.

Originally, an order for possession was made against the tenant on February 19, 2001 on terms that she paid all arrears of rent by March 19, 2001, but she settled the arrears only on October 26, 2004 while continuing to occupy the property.

Mr Matthew Feldman for the tenant; Ms Zia Bhaloo for the landlord.

LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK said that the original possession order of February 19, 2001 had ceased to be enforceable. There was no date to which the giving of possession could sensibly be postponed.

Under the terms of the order as made, and in the events which had happened, there had been no date since October 26, 2004 on which the tenant could be required to give possession on the ground relied upon in the earlier proceedings.

The position in the present case was indistinguishable from that in Swindon Borough Council v Aston ([2003] HLR 42) where the possession order had been rescinded on application before the issue of the fresh proceedings.

In the present proceedings, the landlord claimed possession as freehold owner where (i) the secure tenancy granted in 1997 had come to an end, (ii) there was no possibility of that tenancy being revived by an order of a court and (iii) no other tenancy had arisen from the conduct of the parties.

It was, of course, true that the secure tenancy had come to an end because the date on which the tenant was to give up possession in pursuance of the order was March 19, 2001. But the tenancy came to an end on that date because that was what section 82(2) of the Housing Act 1985 provided.

The landlord relied in the present proceedings on the facts that (i) the order was made and (ii) the date on which the tenant was to give up possession under that order was March 19, 2001, in order to establish that the secure tenancy had come to an end.

But that was not the same as seeking to enforce the order. The judge did not fall into the error of allowing a possession order, made under Part IV of the 1985 Act, to be enforced in a manner which circumvented section 85(2) of that Act.

Lord Justice Lloyd gave a concurring judgment and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton agreed.

Solicitors: Clifford Watts Compton, Stoke Newington; Trowers & Hamlins.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones