INVESTVIEW LTD v TANDRIDGE DC (2025) UKUT 405 (LC) concerns the regulation of HMOs under the Housing Act 2004, PROHIBITION ORDERS imposed in response to what the Council regarded as a number of HAZARDS, including INADEQUATE SPACE, relevant SPACE STANDARDS, and the risk posed for occupants. The Court analysed the legal regimes in relation to the SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION. These are (1) Planning : paras 5-7; (2) Statutory Overcrowding under the Housing Act 1985 : paras 8 & 9; (3) the Housing Health and safety rating System , under Part 1 of the 2004 Act and 2005 regulations : paras 10-12; and (4) the Decent Homes Standard : para 13.

In Tower Hamlets LBC v Leaseholders (2025) EWCA CIv 1591 the Court of Appeal explains that the effect of provisions in the Right to Buy legislation is that a landlord can recover a contribution to the cost of making good a structural defect in a building only if the defect was notified to the tenant before the lease was granted or if the landlord did not become aware of the defect until 10 years after the grant of the lease : paras 43-46 inc & 64-66 inc.

OXFORD HOTEL INVESTMENTS LTD v Great Yarmouth BC (2025) UKUT 387  (LC) at paras 18-28 holds that a microwave oven does NOT amount to “ cooking facilities”, for the purposes of the definition of an HMO in Section 254(A) of the Housing Act 1996, with the result that not all 3 of the “ basic amenities” (toilet, personal washing facilities and cooking facilities) are not present and there is not a “self-contained flat” but rather a part of an HMO.

LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD v A  (2025) EWCA Civ 1355 concerns OUT OF BOROUGH PLACEMENTS. The Court of Appeal holds that a failure to give NOTIFICATION under Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 within the statutory time limit does NOT affect the suitability of accommodation offered. It is the suitability of the offered accommodation that is the subject of any review . Any appeal must challenge the lawfulness of that decision. The duty under Section 208 is a “collateral duty”. Breach does not impugn the lawfulness of a review decision or the suitability of the offered accommodation. An appeal under Section 204 is limited to grounds that go to the legality of the review decision.

In WANDSWORTH LBC v YOUNG (2025) EWCA Civ 1336 Newey LJ addressed a local authority’s NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS to its tenants after ending its MAIN HOUSING DUTY under Section 193, as amended, in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Where there have been deficiencies in a housing assessment under Section 189A of the Housing Act 1996, and the authority’s subsequent review under Section 202 has cured those deficiencies, the review decision cannot be set aside on the basis of those original deficiencies. So reaffirmed in FATOLAHZADEH v BARNET LBC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1174.

Entitlement to housing benefit without having to make a fresh claim in changed circumstances is the subject matter of SoS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS v SC/MJ v BROMLEY LBC (2025) UKUT 299 (AAC).  One of the entitlement conditions was presence in Great Britain.  They were temporarily out of Great Britain, during which time the authorities ruled that the original benefit award was superseded (the supersession decision), which had the effect that their continuing benefit entitlement came to an end and required them to make a new claim on their return.  The issue was whether there should have been a closed period supersession decision, applying only whilst they were outside Great Britain.  The answer was: No.

R ( AN ) v BARKING AND DAGENHAM LBC ( 2025 ) EWHC 2265 ( Admin ) is one of many judicial review claims which raises issues on the adequacy in difficult circumstances of efforts by a local housing authority ( LHA ) to provide housing assistance to a homeless family. The Court stresses ( para3 ) the importance of LHAs carrying out “ proper and informed assessments “ of the housing needs of homeless persons, and ( para 4 ) that where the only housing accommodation they have yet been able to offer to a family with children is temporary bed & breakfast accommodation that “ continues no longer than necessary.” There were two grounds of challenge. Ground 1 concerned the lawfulness of the LHA’s Housing Needs Assessment. That succeeded. Ground 2 was that the LHA’s “ Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy “ was unlawful. That failed.

FERTRE v VALE OF WHITE HORSE DC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1057 is a case brought against a local housing authority’s refusal of housing assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The grant of pre-settled status to EU citizens and their family members under post- Brexit arrangements does NOT itself automatically confer the right to EQUAL TREATMENT with UK citizens under Article 23 of the WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT in respect  of social assistance. To enjoy equal treatment an EU citizen needs to be complying with the conditions on residence rights set out in various EU instruments applied by Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

R ( AA ) v WALTHAM FOREST LBC ( 2025 ) EWHC 1625 ( Admin ) concerns a local housing authority’s duties under Section 189A of the HOUSING ACT 1996. This relates to assessments and personalised plan. If the authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless ( or threatened with homelessness ) and eligible for ASSISTANCE then Section 189A (1) provides that the authority MUST make an ASSESSMENT of the applicant’s case. Section 189A (2) states what an assessment MUST include. The Judge rejects a submission that there is a remedy alternative to Judicial Review with respect to a challenge to a Housing Needs Assessment and/or Personal Housing Plan.