City of Westminster Council v Abdul Kazam & Anor
[2023] EWHC 825 (KB)
Armin Rahimi v City of Westminster Council
5 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 73
Court of Appeal
A grandmother and her husband had a joint tenancy. The husband moved out. The council acted as if only the grandmother was the tenant, but never officially said so. After the grandmother died, her grandson tried to take over the tenancy. The court said the council's actions weren't clear enough proof of a new tenancy, so the grandson lost the case.
Key Facts
- •Westminster Council granted Mr Kazam and Mrs Hussain a joint tenancy in 2005.
- •Mr Kazam left the property in 2011 and was rehoused by Westminster.
- •Westminster internally recorded Mrs Hussain as the sole tenant, but this was not communicated to her or Mr Kazam.
- •Mrs Hussain paid the rent alone after 2011.
- •Mrs Hussain's grandson, Mr Rahimi, lived with her until her death in 2020.
- •Westminster claimed possession after Mrs Hussain's death, arguing the tenancy had ceased.
- •Mr Rahimi claimed succession rights to the tenancy.
Legal Principles
A secure tenancy is generally incapable of assignment, except under certain circumstances (Housing Act 1985, section 91).
Housing Act 1985
Succession to a secure tenancy is governed by specific rules, including the 'one succession' rule (Housing Act 1985, sections 87-90).
Housing Act 1985
An implied surrender and regrant of a joint tenancy requires unequivocal conduct by all parties involved, including the landlord and all joint tenants (Lyon v Reed, Leek & Moorlands BS v Clark, Greenwich LBC v McGrady).
Lyon v Reed, Leek & Moorlands BS v Clark, Greenwich LBC v McGrady
The conduct relied upon must be unequivocally inconsistent with the continued existence of the tenancy (various cases cited).
Tarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd, Brent LBC v Sharma, Zionmoor v Islington LBC, Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina, Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan, Sable v QFS Scaffolding Ltd
A change of possession, not necessarily physical, is required for a new tenancy to be inferred.
Metcalfe v Boyce, Haringey LBC v Ahmed
To infer a new tenancy from conduct, the facts must truly warrant it; if the acceptance of rent can be explained otherwise, a new tenancy should not be inferred (Marcroft Wagons Ltd v Smith).
Marcroft Wagons Ltd v Smith
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Rahimi's appeal.
The court found insufficient evidence to support an implied surrender and regrant of the joint tenancy. The court held that Westminster did not grant a new sole tenancy to Mrs Hussain, and therefore the tenancy vested in Mr Kazam upon Mrs Hussain's death. The tenancy was not a secure tenancy at that point, and Westminster lawfully terminated it.
Lady Justice Macur agreed with the principle but disagreed with the conclusion of Lord Justice Lewison; she considered the internal council document as strong inferential evidence, but ultimately agreed that the appeal should be remitted to the County Court for a rehearing due to insufficient reasoning at first instance.
The internal Westminster document, though not creating an estoppel, provided strong inferential evidence of a new tenancy when considered with other circumstances. However, the lack of explicit reasoning by the trial judge required a rehearing.
Lord Justice Newey agreed with Lord Justice Lewison's conclusion and reasoning.
The court found the evidence insufficient to infer a new tenancy. Mrs Hussain's conduct, Westminster's internal records, and lack of direct communication did not demonstrate a new agreement.