Housing focus

The extent to which Human Rights Act 1998 and Art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) afford a “public law” defence to possession claims brought in the county court against non-secure tenants is a question which continues to take up much court time. The Court of Appeal recently considered it in relation to introductory tenants and homeless persons in five conjoined appeals: Salford CC v Mullen; LB Hounslow v Powell; Leeds CC v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby; Manchester CC v Mushin [2010] EWCA Civ 336, [2010] All ER (D) 289 (Mar).

It was held that, in principle, an occupier could raise a “public law” defence in the county court unless the statutory scheme under which the tenancy was granted precluded it. Like demoted tenancies (Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2009] EWCA Civ 852, [2009] All ER (D) 10 (Aug)) the scheme governing introductory tenancies prevented the county court from considering a public law defence. In such