Image from Google Jackets

Honeygan-Green v LB Islington [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWCA Civ 363, 22 April 2008. Considered whether a long lease could be transferred to a tenant under the right to buy scheme once her secure tenancy was revived. The appellant tenant (H) had lost her secure tenancy with her local authority landlord (I) due to rent arrears. It was ruled on appeal that H's right to buy was forfeited along with this (L140943), and in light of the fact I had obtained a possession order. H argued that each step she had taken had been in effect an exercise of her right to buy. The judge had found circumstances relevant to section 138 of the Housing Act 1985 to be persuasive, but this had not been brought before him by I. Consequently he was not in full possession of the facts. H also argued that there were now no outstanding matters to prevent the granting of right to buy. "Held": It was for the court to decide whether the tenant should start purchase proceedings afresh if circumstances warranted it. Such judiciary discretion was wide. In H's circumstances it was not deemed necessary. The judge had erred in using section 138 as a deciding factor. Appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 143586-1001

[2008] EWCA Civ 363, 22 April 2008. Considered whether a long lease could be transferred to a tenant under the right to buy scheme once her secure tenancy was revived. The appellant tenant (H) had lost her secure tenancy with her local authority landlord (I) due to rent arrears. It was ruled on appeal that H's right to buy was forfeited along with this (L140943), and in light of the fact I had obtained a possession order. H argued that each step she had taken had been in effect an exercise of her right to buy. The judge had found circumstances relevant to section 138 of the Housing Act 1985 to be persuasive, but this had not been brought before him by I. Consequently he was not in full possession of the facts. H also argued that there were now no outstanding matters to prevent the granting of right to buy. "Held": It was for the court to decide whether the tenant should start purchase proceedings afresh if circumstances warranted it. Such judiciary discretion was wide. In H's circumstances it was not deemed necessary. The judge had erred in using section 138 as a deciding factor. Appeal allowed.