000			02987cab a22004455a 4500
001			L144354
008			080714e20080612xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144354
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aHanoman v London Borough of Southwark _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_aHanoman 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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 PART V
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S122
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S125
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S126
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S127
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S129
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S138
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S140
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S141
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S181
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
650	2	4	_aSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S123
650	2	4	_aSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 S134
650	2	4	_aMOVITEX V BULFIELD
650	2	4	_aR V ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY EX PARTE SPATH HOLME LTD
650	2	4	_aSHEFFIELD CC V JACKSON AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aINNTREPRENEUR PUB COMPANY LTD V EAST CROWN LTD
650	2	4	_aBUSINESS ENVIRONMENT BOW V DEANWATER ESTATES
650	2	4	_aHEILBUT SYMONS V BUCKLETON
650	2	4	_aBRIKOM INVESTMENTS LTD V CARR
650	2	4	_aCITY OF WESTMINSTER PROPERTIES LTD V MUDD
650	2	4	_aESSEX CITY COUNCIL V ESSEX INCORPORATED CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH UNION
651		4	_aUnited Kingdom _y
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/624.html _zView the case free of charge online at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80442 _d80442