David Cowan suggests that danger is looming in the social housing battleground of shared ownership
The debate in the pages of this journal concerning the significance and potential impact of the Supreme Court decisions in Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] 3 WLR 1441, [2011] 1 All ER 285 and Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] 2 WLR 287, [2011] All ER (D) 255 (Feb)—the development of the proportionality defence to mandatory possession claims brought by “public” landlords—has fruitfully developed and reflected the divides in social housing (see NLJ, 25 March 2011, p 425; 15 April 2011, p 527; and 6 May 2011, p 617).
The purpose here is not to engage in further dialogue but to suggest that Pinnock and Powell must be context dependent. They are not the last word on this subject by any means. My chosen subject to develop this point is shared ownership, which may well be the next social housing battleground. By its nature, as shared ownership reaches to marginal buyers, default looms large—hence the ticking time-bomb. There are too many uncertainties and, indeed, unknowns in relation
