Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] UKHL 29, 10 June 2009. H was the tenant of a flat owned by the appellants, S. He was entitled to right-to-buy under the Housing Act 1985 S118. H served a notice of his intention to exercise his right-to-buy, however S claimed that this was subsequently withdrawn. H disputed this. The High Court found that the notice was still subsisting, and H served a notice of delay on S, which provides that rent payments be treated as payments towards the purchase price of the property, if no counter-notice is served. S failed to serve a counter-notice. The property was finally sold to H for £17 000, and he claimed that this sum should be repaid to him, in view of the rent payments he had made after serving the notice of delay. S claimed that the crediting of a tenant's rent account with housing benefit did not constitute a rent payment. The court found in favour of H and S appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 147875-2001 |
[2009] UKHL 29, 10 June 2009. H was the tenant of a flat owned by the appellants, S. He was entitled to right-to-buy under the Housing Act 1985 S118. H served a notice of his intention to exercise his right-to-buy, however S claimed that this was subsequently withdrawn. H disputed this. The High Court found that the notice was still subsisting, and H served a notice of delay on S, which provides that rent payments be treated as payments towards the purchase price of the property, if no counter-notice is served. S failed to serve a counter-notice. The property was finally sold to H for £17 000, and he claimed that this sum should be repaid to him, in view of the rent payments he had made after serving the notice of delay. S claimed that the crediting of a tenant's rent account with housing benefit did not constitute a rent payment. The court found in favour of H and S appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed.