![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Malik v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWHC 2921 (Admin) (03 November 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2921.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 2921 (Admin), [2011] RVR 74 |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| ALI IMTIAZ MALIK | Claimant | |
| v | ||
| LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 0207 404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Genevieve
Screeche-Powell
(instructed by LB Tower Hamlets) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The following are the classes of chargeable dwellings prescribed for the purposes of section 8(1) of the of section 8(1) of the Act-
[Houses in multiple occupation]
Class C a dwelling which-
...
(b) is inhabited by a person who, or by two or more persons each of whom either-
(i) is a tenant of, or has a licence to occupy, part only of the dwelling; or
(ii) has a licence to occupy, but is not liable (whether alone or jointly with other persons) to pay rent or a licence fee in respect of the dwelling as a whole."
"Mr Malik has advised that the three bedroom property has been without tenants from 2003 until March 2009, and the sole occupier throughout this period has been Mr Ahmed."
"However, the Panel is of the opinion that the weight of evidence provided by Mr Tattoo supports his argument that more than one occupier has been in residence at the address since 2003."
The Panel goes on to explain why.
Screeche-Powell
has conceded, that the Tribunal nowhere referred in their judgment to a specific finding that the persons they found had been living there had been living there as licensees. However, it seems to me that her submission that it is a necessary consequence of the first finding is sound. How, one asks oneself, could there be a finding that Mr Malik had simply not told the truth about the place being occupied solely by Mr Ahmed, and a finding that over the years a large number of people had been living there, clearly to the knowledge at the very least of Mr Ahmed. The inference to be drawn must be that they had been living there as licensees, whether of Mr Ahmed himself or of Mr Malik or perhaps of both.
Screeche-Powell
makes a further point on the assumption that the failure to mention the word "licensee" in the judgment affected the validity of the judgment. She submits that in fact, albeit it was not a point made at the original hearing, the finding that the house was a house in multiple occupation was on the basis that it was occupied by a person on the case of Mr Malik himself, who had a licence to occupy only part of the dwelling: that is to say, under (b)(i) of the regulations already quoted.
Screeche-Powell
submits that, since the answer to the question is so obvious, the court, if it were considering the point, should take the sensible course of rejecting the appeal on the basis that, if the matter were to be remitted, there could only be one result. I am bound to say I am bound to favour that submission against the submission of Mr Zane Malik, but, as I have said, it is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal to make a conclusive finding.
SCREECHE-POWELL: My Lord, there is the matter of costs. I am not asking you to summarily assess them today. I do not have a costs schedule. I ask that they be taxed.