Jenny Mansell

Jenny trained at TV Edwards LLP and qualified as a solicitor in 2014. She has worked for the firm since 2011. Jenny has a mixed practice of housing, community care and mental capacity work which allows her to provide a holistic service to her clients.

Jenny specialises in a variety of areas of housing law, including homelessness cases (such as challenging gatekeeping by local authorities, conducting reviews and county court appeals of negative decisions by the local authority and challenging the suitability of accommodation), poor housing conditions claims, possession proceedings brought on grounds of rent arrears, sub-letting and nuisance and anti-social behaviour injunctions (including committal proceedings).

Jenny also undertakes community care work including assisting people with physical and mental health difficulties in obtaining Care Act assessments and challenging cuts to care packages, support for homeless families with children, and challenging the suitability of asylum support accommodation. She enjoys undertaking work for young people in order to ensure that they are receiving appropriate support from the local authority under their Children Act duties.

With a busy mental capacity practice, Jenny is an Accredited Legal Representative and regularly undertakes challenges to unlawful deprivations of liberty under section 21A Mental Capacity Act 2005 instructed by a person’s Relevant Person’s Representative. She also undertakes welfare cases involving both young people and adults and deals with disputes over capacity.

Jenny’s particular area of interest is possession proceedings or anti-social behaviour injunctions where the person requires care and support and ultimately the case may need to go to the Court of Protection. Jenny is regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor on cases where clients lack capacity to provide instructions in these matters and due to her specialism in all three areas of law, she is able to see the case through from beginning to end. The provides invaluable oversight to the case at an early stage.

Notable cases

• R on the application of Turley v. London Borough of Wandsworth: Jenny acted for the Appellant, Ms Turley, who was the long-term partner of the sole tenant of a four-bedroom property. The tenancy was a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985, and the landlord was the London Borough of Wandsworth, the First Respondent. In 2010 there was a breakdown in the relationship between the Appellant and the tenant, and in December of that year he moved out of the property. He returned in January 2012 but by then he was seriously ill, and he died in March 2012. Since the Appellant did not meet the relevant conditions to succeed the tenancy because she had not been living with the tenant for 12 months prior to his death, the local authority served her with a Notice to Quit. Jenny brought a challenge to that decision on behalf of the Appellant based on articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’): the right to respect for private and family life. This was on the basis that the difference in treatment between spouses/civil partners and cohabiting partners was not justified. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court, and she appealed to the Court of Appeal. Ultimately the Court of Appeal found that the difference in treatment between spouses and common law partners was justified.
• R on the application of MD v London Borough of Waltham Forest: Jenny acted for MD in a claim for judicial review against the local authority’s decision that MD was not entitled to accommodation and support under section 20 Children Act 1989 and subsequently when she turned 18 during the course of the judicial review to support as a former relevant child under the care leaving provisions. The matter went to a final hearing but settled at Court on the day where the local authority accepted that they should have accommodated MD under section 20 Children Act 1989, agreed to exercise their discretion to treat her as a former relevant child and pay costs.
• AW (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v. Royal Borough of Richmond Upon Thames: Jenny acted for AW in an appeal against Richmond’s decision to discharge the main housing duty to AW because the council had subsequently accepted that he lacked capacity to make a homeless application. There had been evidence that AW lacked capacity to make a homeless application before the local authority prior to the main duty being accepted but the local authority made their own decision to accept a homeless application. The Court held that there was no power to withdraw a decision accepting the main housing duty simply because the applicant lacked capacity.
• R on the application of HEJ v London Borough of Brent: Jenny acted for HEJ in a claim for judicial review against the local authority’s decision that HEJ was not entitled to accommodation and support under section 20 Children Act 1989. The matter was resolved through mediation with the local authority agreeing to support HEJ’s foster carers to make an application for a Special Guardianship Order and provide financial support.
• Jenny acted for RP in anti-social behaviour injunction proceedings brought by his landlord. These were focussed on his hoarding behaviours. The injunction proceedings were dismissed following the Court’s acceptance that RP lacked capacity to comply with the terms of an injunction and the local social services department applied to the Court of Protection for a deputyship order to manage RP’s belongings in his best interests.
• Jenny acted for JS in proceedings in the Court of Protection and in possession proceedings in respect of her flat. In the proceedings in the Court of Protection, there was a best interests dispute as to whether JS could return home as she had been in a care home placement for several years following a brain injury. Ultimately JS was able to return home with a care package in place to live with her son and the possession proceedings were dismissed.
• Jenny acted for SK who was 98 years old and was in a care home placement. SK was objecting to her placement. She also objected to the finding that she lacks capacity to make decisions about her accommodation and care. SK had significant communication issues as she was partially blind and deaf and so Jenny had to use innovative methods to communicate with SK. Jenny brought proceedings in the Court of Protection on SK’s behalf and she was found to have capacity to make decisions about her accommodation and care.
• Jenny acted for RP in Court of Protection proceedings about where he should live. RP had dementia and lived alone in a flat. There were concerns about self neglect and that he was being exploited and his landlord had begun possession proceedings in relation to allegations of anti-social behaviour caused by those exploiting him. RP regularly accessed his local community and this was very important to him. Initially the local authority proposed a move to a care home placement. As a result of the proceedings, RP was moved to supported accommodation where he was still able to access the community using assistive technology.

Panel Memberships

• Housing Law Practitioners’ Association
• Accredited Legal Representative, Mental Capacity (Welfare) Accreditation

Languages

• Conversational Spanish

Recommendations