Radhika Shah

Radhika Shah

Radhika Shah

Associate Solicitor (Supervisor) Qualified: November 2014

Radhika joined TV Edwards in 2015 and is a housing supervisor.

Before joining TV Edwards, Radhika trained at Hopkin Murray Beskine in housing, public and family law seats and then spent a year working as a solicitor in the housing and community care team at a West London law firm.

Experienced in all areas of housing law, Radhika represents clients in a range of possession proceedings (for rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, fraudulent statements, sub-letting and succession) and disrepair claims or counterclaims.

Radhika also represents clients in injunction proceedings and committal proceedings for breaches of injunction orders.

Radhika advises clients on all aspects of homelessness cases, including reviews and appeals of negative decisions from local authorities and challenges to local authorities’ failures to comply with their duties by way of judicial review.

Radhika has experience of representing clients who lack capacity to conduct litigation. Radhika draws on her knowledge in other areas of law (such as family and community care) to provide clients with thorough and effective advice.

Radhika is recommended in the2021 edition of the Legal 500 as a ‘key lawyer’.

Notable cases:

R. (on the application of Laryea) -v- Ealing LBC [2019] 8 WLUK 164

Castro v Lambeth LBC (December 2019/January 2020 Legal Action 30)

Kirsty Eales v Havering London Borough Council (September 2018 Legal Action)

Case examples:

  • Possession/Rent Arrears/Counterclaim - Radhika acted for a client who had very high rent arrears. Her social landlord sought possession on rent arears and a counterclaim was brought for disrepair. Radhika successfully negotiated an order for the possession claim to be dismissed, the works to be done and the client’s arrears to be cleared.
  • Possession Proceedings/Section 21 Notice - Radhika acted for a tenant of a private landlord where possession proceedings were brought on the basis of a Section 21 notice. The claim was successfully defended on the basis that the Section 21 notice was not valid as the landlord had not complied with all the legal requirements.
  • Possession Proceedings//Mandatory Grounds/Equality Act - Radhika assisted a vulnerable tenant with mental health issues to defend possession proceedings based on anti-social behaviour, including the mandatory ground for possession. A defence and counterclaim were raised on the basis that the landlord was unlawfully discriminating against the tenant. Radhika successfully negotiated a suspended possession order.
  • Application for re-entry – Radhika assisted a client to make an urgent application to the court to be allowed re-entry into his home after a warrant of eviction had been executed. This was on the basis that he had paid his landlord all the rent arrears before the bailiff actually executed the warrant of eviction. The local authority landlord agreed an order to allow the client back into his home and to set-aside the possession order. The local authority landlord was ordered to pay the client’s legal costs.
  • Possession Proceedings/Tenant left the property – The local authority landlord issued possession proceedings based on rent arrears against their tenant who had since left the property, leaving her former partner living in her home with their children. Her former partner wanted to continue to living in the property and Radhika assisted him to defend the possession proceedings. The landlord discontinued the possession claim, after the client successfully transferred the tenancy into his name following his application in the family court for transfer of tenancy. The local authority landlord were ordered to pay the client’s legal costs.
  • Injunction Proceedings – Radhika represented a client facing injunction proceedings from their landlord, following allegations of anti-social behaviour. The landlord accepted undertakings from the client, after Radhika made submissions about his mental health, with medical evidence, and made submissions about the change in the client’s behaviour.
  • Committal Proceedings/Capacity - Radhika represented a client facing committal proceedings in relation to allegations that they had breached an injunction order obtained by their landlord. Radhika obtained a medical expert report which stated that the client lacked capacity to understand the litigation and the injunction order itself. The landlord agreed that the injunction order be discharged and that the committal proceedings be dismissed.
  • Homelessness/Temporary accommodation/Priority Need - Radhika urgently assisted a client who was facing street homelessness as accommodation provided by the Home Office was coming to an end. The client was provided with temporary accommodation and Radhika assisted the client to overturn a decision that he was not in priority need. Ultimately, the local authority accepted a full housing duty to the client.
  • Homelessness/No Recourse to Public Funds - Radhika assisted a single mother of two young children who had no recourse to public funds to obtain assistance from children’s social services to be housed and receive subsistence payments to avoid destitution.

Panel Memberships: Housing Law Practitioners’ Association (HLPA)

Testimonials:

Amazing work

Radhika was very efficient and kept me updated while dealing with my case

Radhika helped very much and ensured the job was done