Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [electronic resource]
Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [electronic resource]
- 2008
Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark, 12 June 2008. Appellant was secure tenant of a one bredroom flat owned by the local authority and notified the respondent that he wished to exercise his right to buy the lease of his flat according to Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985. Respondents challenged authenticity of claim, but High Court ruled it permissable. Premium payable for right to buy was £17,000 and the appellant served several notices of delay as the respondent failed to respond within the time allocated and claimed that the lease should be reduced to nil. Appellant completed the purchase and retained the right to question whether the price to be paid for the lease fell to be reduced by reference to the housing benefits that were used to pay off the rent in the same way as the appellant would have received if he had paid rent from his own money. Held: appeal allowed. Payment of housing benefit to be treated same as though payment had been by the tenant - natural meaning was that rent paid encompassed all rent duly paid whatever the source of payment. Collateral contract existed between appellant and respondents that allowed the appellant to proceed towards completion on the basis that he would be able to enforce any rights to dispute the exercise of his right to buy in the county court after completion.
HOUSING ACT 1985 PART V
HOUSING ACT 1985 S122
HOUSING ACT 1985 S125
HOUSING ACT 1985 S126
HOUSING ACT 1985 S127
HOUSING ACT 1985 S129
HOUSING ACT 1985 S138
HOUSING ACT 1985 S140
HOUSING ACT 1985 S141
HOUSING ACT 1985 S181
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S123
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S134
MOVITEX V BULFIELD
R V ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY EX PARTE SPATH HOLME LTD
SHEFFIELD CC V JACKSON AND OTHERS
INNTREPRENEUR PUB COMPANY LTD V EAST CROWN LTD
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT BOW V DEANWATER ESTATES
HEILBUT SYMONS V BUCKLETON
BRIKOM INVESTMENTS LTD V CARR
CITY OF WESTMINSTER PROPERTIES LTD V MUDD
ESSEX CITY COUNCIL V ESSEX INCORPORATED CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH UNION
United Kingdom--
Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark, 12 June 2008. Appellant was secure tenant of a one bredroom flat owned by the local authority and notified the respondent that he wished to exercise his right to buy the lease of his flat according to Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985. Respondents challenged authenticity of claim, but High Court ruled it permissable. Premium payable for right to buy was £17,000 and the appellant served several notices of delay as the respondent failed to respond within the time allocated and claimed that the lease should be reduced to nil. Appellant completed the purchase and retained the right to question whether the price to be paid for the lease fell to be reduced by reference to the housing benefits that were used to pay off the rent in the same way as the appellant would have received if he had paid rent from his own money. Held: appeal allowed. Payment of housing benefit to be treated same as though payment had been by the tenant - natural meaning was that rent paid encompassed all rent duly paid whatever the source of payment. Collateral contract existed between appellant and respondents that allowed the appellant to proceed towards completion on the basis that he would be able to enforce any rights to dispute the exercise of his right to buy in the county court after completion.
HOUSING ACT 1985 PART V
HOUSING ACT 1985 S122
HOUSING ACT 1985 S125
HOUSING ACT 1985 S126
HOUSING ACT 1985 S127
HOUSING ACT 1985 S129
HOUSING ACT 1985 S138
HOUSING ACT 1985 S140
HOUSING ACT 1985 S141
HOUSING ACT 1985 S181
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S123
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S134
MOVITEX V BULFIELD
R V ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY EX PARTE SPATH HOLME LTD
SHEFFIELD CC V JACKSON AND OTHERS
INNTREPRENEUR PUB COMPANY LTD V EAST CROWN LTD
BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT BOW V DEANWATER ESTATES
HEILBUT SYMONS V BUCKLETON
BRIKOM INVESTMENTS LTD V CARR
CITY OF WESTMINSTER PROPERTIES LTD V MUDD
ESSEX CITY COUNCIL V ESSEX INCORPORATED CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH UNION
United Kingdom--