A couple were not allowed to succeed to the secure tenancy of the relation with whom they had been living, which meant that they were trespassing on the council’s property.

Following the death of a secure tenant of Hammersmith LBC, the council sought possession of the flat from a cousin of the tenant (and her husband) who had been living with the tenant for the previous two years.

The cousin and her husband had claimed to have succeeded to the tenancy, but the council had decided that they were not eligible because it did not believed that they have been living in the flat for more than a year before the tenant’s death. This was due to a housing benefit application by the tenant, on which he had said that no one else resided at the property.

Tolerated trespassers are able to bring an action in nuisance against the owner of the property in which they are residing.

A secure tenant fell into rent arrears, and a suspended possession order was made against her. She breached this order, and became a tolerated trespasser. She later began proceedings against the council, alleging that her flat was infested with cockroaches and that this was due to the infestations in common parts of the building that were owned by the council. The council claimed that she did not have a cause of action because she was not a tenant. It contended that she did not have a sufficient interest in the premises to support an action in nuisance.

On appeal:

Camden LBC brought possession proceedings against a lady who was trespassing on their property. The lady admitted that she was in occupation of premises without a permission, but argued that she was on the council’s waiting list for accommodation and had no other place to live. The judge made a possession order, but directed that it should not be enforced until the council offered the lady alternative accommodation.

Camden LBC appealed.  On appeal:

Local authorities brought proceedings against trespassers who had broken in to and were living in local authority houses. The judge made an immediate possession order (under the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113), but the trespassers appealed, asking for the possession order to be delayed for four weeks.

While moving his grass, the owner of land accidentally mowed some grass on his neighbour’s land.