Hackney LBC v Weintraub [2024] EWCA Civ 1561 

Court of Appeal - 13 December 2024

The Court of Appeal has held that a secure tenant was occupying a property as their “only or principal home” despite rarely staying overnight there. The tenant’s intention to return to the property – either as a tenant or an owner following the exercise of the right to buy – was sufficient.

The respondent (“Mr Weintraub”) and his late wife had held a secure tenancy in a local authority property since 2002. From 2008, after his wife had died, Mr Weintraub was afraid of being in the property alone overnight and used to invite various people to stay with him. This eventually became too difficult to arrange and, consequently, from 2017, he slept mainly at his daughter's house. He continued to return the property for several hours during the day for study purposes. When he subsequently decided to exercise his right to buy the property, with the intention of converting the basement of the property into a separate flat which he would let out so that he would not be alone there, the local authority (“London Borough of Hackney”) rejected his application. It argued that Mr Weintraub did not live at the property as his “only or principal home” and was therefore no longer a secure tenant for the purposes of section 81 of the Housing Act 1985 and could not exercise the right to buy. Mr Weintraub issued legal proceedings, seeking a declaration that he had the right to buy the property, but the trial judge ruled in favour of the London Borough of Hackney. Mr Weintraub appealed.   

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the London Borough of Hackney had accepted that Mr Weintraub used the property as “a” home and that for it not to be his “only or principal” home, it had to be able to identify another property that was also being used as “a” home, which it had failed to do. Also, it was clear that Mr Weintraub intended to return to the property once the conversion works had been completed. London Borough of Hackney appealed, arguing that Mr Weintraub intended to return as an owner (rather than as a tenant) of the property.   

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that Mr Weintraub satisfied the “tenant condition” and that he occupied the property as his “only or principal home” under section 81 of the Housing Act 1985 despite sleeping most nights at his daughter's house. He was still a secure tenant who was entitled to exercise the right to buy. He was not absent from the property, as he was there every day, or almost every day.   

The ruling highlights that a right to buy application can continue providing that (1) the tenant can show an intention to return to the property, and (2) the tenant’s absence from the property has not been sufficiently lengthy so that security of tenure is lost.   

A copy of the judgment is here. 

Howe v Brent LBC [2024] EWCA Civ 1444 

Court of Appeal - 27 November 2024   

The Court of Appeal has held that a family member is deemed to share the right to buy despite the fact that their qualifying status was not established until after the death of the original secure tenant.   

The mother of the respondent (“Mr Howe”) had been a secure tenant of a local authority property and had served a notice under section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1985 claiming the right to buy. Mr Howe had been living in the property as his main home for more than 12 months, and his mother wanted him to jointly share the right to buy under section 123 of the Housing Act 1985 (“Claim to share right to buy with members of family”). The local authority (“London Borough of Brent”) accepted the mother's right to buy, but denied that she was entitled to share that right with Mr Howe, as there was insufficient documentary evidence to show that Mr Howe had been living with her for the previous 12 months. The mother subsequently died and, consequently, London Borough of Brent stated that the right to buy application had been withdrawn, as Mr Howe could not satisfy the twelve month residence requirement. Mr Howe applied to the County Court to seek a determination that he satisfied the residence conditions and should be able to continue the right to buy application.

The County Court found in favour of Mr Howe, ruling that he satisfied the residence conditions and that he was therefore deemed to be a secure tenant and entitled to continue the right to buy application. London Borough of Brent appealed, arguing that Mr Howe’s claim was made after his mother had died, meaning the secure tenancy no longer existed and therefore the right to buy could not be exercised.   

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that once it had been established that Mr Howe had met the requirements of section 123 of the Housing Act 1985 at the time of the original right to buy application, validly requiring that he share in the right to buy, then Mr Howe was a joint secure tenant. There was nothing in the Housing Act 1985 requiring a deemed secure tenant to serve another right to buy notice under section 122 of the Act. Mr Howe’s mother had commenced the right to buy process and, at the time, had properly identified Mr Howe as someone with whom she wanted to exercise the right. That was sufficient to enable Mr Howe to proceed with her right to buy application after she had died.   

This ruling is significant for local authorities and they should take note of the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of section 123 of the Housing Act 1985. If a family member meets the requirements of section 123 of the Housing Act 1985 at the time of the service of a section 122 right to buy notice requiring them to share the right, there is nothing more that the family member needs to do to be deemed a joint secure tenant and share the right to buy.   

A copy of the judgment is here. 

Hussaini v Islington LBC [2025] EWCA Civ 22 

Court of Appeal - 17 January 2025   

The Court of Appeal has clarified the test for “local connection” when dealing with applications from homeless applicants.   

The appellant (“Mr Hussaini”) had been given asylum support accommodation in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Several times per week he attended a centre that offered support to young survivors of human rights abuses, which was in the district of the respondent (“London Borough of Islington”). Mr Hussaini was subsequently granted leave to remain in the UK, which required him to leave his asylum support accommodation. He applied to London Borough of Islington for housing assistance, which decided that he was homeless and eligible for assistance. However, it deemed that he had no “local connection” to the area, as defined under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (family associations, residence, employment or “special circumstances”), but considered that he had a local connection to London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and sought to refer him to that local authority, where he had been in temporary accommodation.

Mr Hussaini sought a review of this decision on the basis that he had a “local connection” to the London Borough of Islington because the centre had provided him with a specialist support service that he could not access in any other borough and which was central to his wellbeing; his support network was in the district; and he worked part-time for a charity in the district. He cited the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, which said that “special circumstances” might include the need to be near special medical or support services which were available only in a particular district. On review, London Borough of Islington decided that there was no need for Mr Hussaini to live near the support centre in order to access its services, and there was no evidence that he needed to be near special medical or support services in its district. Mr Hussaini’s appeal was rejected by the County Court, so he sought a further appeal at the Court of Appeal.   

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, accepted Mr Hussaini’s argument that London Borough of Islington was not entitled to apply a test of needing to live within the borough to establish a “local connection”. However, the Court found that the Council’s review officer did not impose a residency requirement as a necessary feature of a “local connection” due to “special circumstances” and did not make an unreasonable decision.

The ruling will be welcomed by local authorities. It highlights that a local authority is entitled to take into consideration the fact that a housing applicant can travel into its district to use a service, and the easier it is to do this, the less likely it is that a “local connection” will arise.   

A copy of the judgment is here.