Did the Court of Appeal’s refusal to allow a local authority’s housing possession order defeat the whole purpose of introductory tenancies? Nicholas Dobson reports
Before scrutinising the Court of Appeal’s decision in Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Armour [2014] EWCA Civ 231, [2014] All ER (D) 170 (Mar) to reject a local authority’s housing possession order when one of its tenants breached his introductory tenancy, it is worth outlining the legal context. In housing possession cases, a court may now have regard to the occupier’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and, if necessary, make its own factual evaluation. This is clear following the two key decisions of the Supreme Court in London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, [2011] 2 All ER 129 and Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 1 All ER 285.
But the hurdle is high, since the courts do recognise occupier protections inherent in domestic housing law. As Lord Neuberger said in Pinnock: “In virtually every case where a residential occupier has no contractual or statutory
