Image from Google Jackets

Copping and another v Surrey County Council

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 34 EG 110-118(9)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: [2005] EWHC 754 (QB), 29 April 2005. Considers whether a right to buy under the Housing Act 1985 Part V exists independently of the notice of claim. Appeal by claimant local authority (S) against a decision declaring as valid the first notice served by the respondent married couple (C) to exercise their right to buy their property from S and that it established the relevant valuation date. C served the first notice in March 1991 but S served a counter-notice denying C the right to buy on the ground that there was no secure tenancy. C served a second notice in July 2001 that was similarly denied. In July 2003 the county court upheld C's contention that they held a secure tenancy. S advised C that the established valuation date was July 2001 but in further proceedings March 1991 was declared to be the correct valuation date. S appealed arguing that C had abandoned or delayed the March 1991 claim and that the July 2001 was the relevant date. "Held" appeal allowed. July 2001 was the relevant valuation date. A right to buy under Part V of the Act does not exist independently of the notice of claim. The absence of an express provision in the Act does not mean that a claim cannot be abandoned or withdrawn.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article L130821 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 130821-1001

[2005] EWHC 754 (QB), 29 April 2005. Considers whether a right to buy under the Housing Act 1985 Part V exists independently of the notice of claim. Appeal by claimant local authority (S) against a decision declaring as valid the first notice served by the respondent married couple (C) to exercise their right to buy their property from S and that it established the relevant valuation date. C served the first notice in March 1991 but S served a counter-notice denying C the right to buy on the ground that there was no secure tenancy. C served a second notice in July 2001 that was similarly denied. In July 2003 the county court upheld C's contention that they held a secure tenancy. S advised C that the established valuation date was July 2001 but in further proceedings March 1991 was declared to be the correct valuation date. S appealed arguing that C had abandoned or delayed the March 1991 claim and that the July 2001 was the relevant date. "Held" appeal allowed. July 2001 was the relevant valuation date. A right to buy under Part V of the Act does not exist independently of the notice of claim. The absence of an express provision in the Act does not mean that a claim cannot be abandoned or withdrawn.