|
[2004] EWCA Civ 1736
All the appellants were tenants of housing associations under assured tenancies who fell into arrears of rent. Possession proceedings were started. There was no dispute that both at the date of the service of the notice of proceedings under s8 of the Housing Act 1988 and the date of the hearing before the district judge, the arrears exceeded the eight weeks’ limit specified in ground 8 of Pt 1 of Sch 2 to the Act. On the face of it, therefore, in each case the court was obliged by s 7 to make an order for possession. Each appellant had made an application to the judge to grant an adjournment of the possession proceedings on the basis that the appellant should be given time to obtain the money to meet the arrears, and therefore to defeat the claim for possession. They all said that their inability to pay the rent was caused by maladministration or other unjustified failures by the housing benefit authorities to pay housing benefit. The district judge in each case refused to grant an adjournment on the basis that he had no jurisdiction to do so. The appellants appealed. A question arose as to whether s 9 of the 1988 Act displaced the power in s 3(2)of the County Courts Act 1984 which provided that ‘a judge may from time to time adjourn any court held by him’.
Held – The appeals would be dismissed. The power to adjourn a hearing date for the purpose of enabling a tenant to pay off arrears, thereby defeating the claim for possession under ground 8, before the court could be satisfied that the landlord was entitled to possession, was only to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances did not include where arrears were attributable to maladministration on the part of the housing benefit authority. Any discretion to adjourn was not to be exercised so as to defeat the policy of the Housing Act or the rights which it conferred on landlords. Had Parliament wished to alleviate the position of tenants it could have so legislated when enacting the Housing Act 1996. If the door were opened to applications for adjournments founded on housing benefit problems, there could be a real danger that housing lists would become congested with contested applications for adjournments. That was a factor which militated against a broad discretion. Moreover the language of s 9(6) was quite clear and had to be given effect. Once the court had expressed the conclusion that it was satisfied that the landlord was entitled to possession, and drawn up an order, there was no power to grant an adjournment in any circumstances as the judge had no function left to perform. In the instant appeals, there were no exceptional circumstances such as would have justified an adjournment.
|