Armin Rahimi v City of Westminster Council
[2024] EWCA Civ 73
City of Westminster Council v Abdul Kazam & Anor
9 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 825 (KB)
High Court
The council tried to evict someone, but a judge said they couldn't because the tenant's family member inherited the apartment. A higher court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough proof the original tenants actually gave up their apartment, so the council can now evict.
Key Facts
- •Westminster City Council (appellant) brought a possession claim against Abdul Kazam (D1) and Armin Rahimi (D2).
- •D1 and his wife, Mrs. Hussain, held a joint secure tenancy from 2005.
- •D1 left the property in 2011, obtained alternative housing, and notified the council.
- •An internal council document indicated an amendment from joint to sole tenancy.
- •D2, Mrs. Hussain's grandson, lived with her after arriving in the UK in 2017 until her death in 2020.
- •D2 claimed succession to the tenancy under the Housing Act 1985.
- •The lower court dismissed the possession claim, finding a surrender by operation of law and successful succession by D2.
Legal Principles
Surrender of a tenancy by operation of law requires unequivocal conduct by the parties, demonstrating an acceptance that the tenancy has ended. This is based on estoppel, not subjective intention.
Woodfall: Landlord and Tenant; Sable v QFS Scaffolding [2010] LNTR 30
A joint tenancy cannot be surrendered by one tenant without the other's agreement.
Leek v Moorlands Building Society [1952] 2 QB 788; Greenwich LBC v McGrady [1983] 6 HLR 36
Succession to a secure tenancy is governed by sections 87-90 of the Housing Act 1985.
Housing Act 1985, ss. 87-90
Appellate courts should not overturn a trial judge's factual findings unless there's an identifiable flaw in their reasoning.
Re B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33; Prescott v Potamianos [2019] EWCA Civ 932
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The judge erred in finding that Mrs. Hussain unequivocally concurred with D1's surrender; there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. The judge's finding exceeded the evidence and the high threshold required for surrender by operation of law. The council's internal document wasn't sufficient evidence of Mrs. Hussain's agreement.
The order of the lower court was overturned.
The council is entitled to possession because D1's conduct was equivocal and Mrs. Hussain did not unequivocally agree to the surrender.