Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley
[2023] EWCA Civ 1246
John Howe v Brent London Borough Council
27 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1444
Court of Appeal
A mother tried to buy her council house with her son. The council agreed about the mother, but not the son. Before the issue was settled, the mother died. The court decided the son could still buy the house because his mother’s original request to include him was valid at the time she made it, even though she died before it was officially approved. This means he is considered to have had the right to buy from the moment of the original application.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Howe, a secure tenant, served a section 122 notice to buy her council house jointly with her son, John.
- •The council admitted Mrs. Howe's right but denied John's, requesting further evidence.
- •Mrs. Howe died shortly after, and the council claimed the right to buy was withdrawn.
- •John Howe claimed he met the residence requirement at the time of his mother's notice.
- •The County Court judge ruled John met the requirement and was entitled to continue the application.
Legal Principles
A secure tenant must be a secure tenant at all stages of the right to buy process.
Sutton LBC v Swann (1986) 25 HLR 99; Muir Group; Tonge
Section 123(3) deems a family member a joint secure tenant if the secure tenant validly requires them to share the right to buy.
Housing Act 1985, Section 123(3)
The right to buy is established by landlord admission or court ruling, not solely by the landlord's acceptance.
Southwark London Borough Council v Francis; Lloyd LJ in Francis
A section 122 notice, once validly served, triggers the consequences of Section 123(3), irrespective of subsequent events.
London Borough of Harrow v Tonge
The 'relevant time' for determining eligibility is the date of the section 122 notice.
Copping v Surrey County Council
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
John Howe's mother validly required him to share her right to buy; therefore, he was deemed a joint tenant under section 123(3), even after her death. His right was not lost because the necessary conditions under Section 123 were met at the time of the Section 122 notice.