Image from Google Jackets

Bassetlaw DC v Renshaw

Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; 1992 1 ALL ER 925-928(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 26 June 1991. An appeal against a cc decision granting a possession order to the local authority landlord (B) against the appellant tenant (R). Issues concerned security of tenure and whether R was qualified to succeed the original tenants (R`s mother) on her death. In June 1982 R`s parents had entered into a secure joint tenancy agreement with B. In March 1989 one of the joint tenants (R`s father) gave notice that he was terminating his part of the tenancy. On 1 May 1989 a new tenancy agreement was entered into with R`s mother. She died in July 1989. R sought to succeed her as a secure tenant under Housing Act 1985 s87(b). B argued that R was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy since Mrs R had a successor within s88(1)(b) of the 1985 Act as joint tenant had become the sole tenant. CA held that although R`s mother had been a joint tenant of the 1982 tenancy, she had never been a sole tenant of it. Therefore, she had not been a successor within s88(1)(b) and accordingly R was ent

CA 26 June 1991. An appeal against a cc decision granting a possession order to the local authority landlord (B) against the appellant tenant (R). Issues concerned security of tenure and whether R was qualified to succeed the original tenants (R`s mother) on her death. In June 1982 R`s parents had entered into a secure joint tenancy agreement with B. In March 1989 one of the joint tenants (R`s father) gave notice that he was terminating his part of the tenancy. On 1 May 1989 a new tenancy agreement was entered into with R`s mother. She died in July 1989. R sought to succeed her as a secure tenant under Housing Act 1985 s87(b). B argued that R was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy since Mrs R had a successor within s88(1)(b) of the 1985 Act as joint tenant had become the sole tenant. CA held that although R`s mother had been a joint tenant of the 1982 tenancy, she had never been a sole tenant of it. Therefore, she had not been a successor within s88(1)(b) and accordingly R was ent