The London Borough of Hackney (Appellant) v Weintraub (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0023

Parties

Appellant(s)

The London Borough of Hackney

Respondent(s)

Yisroel Weintraub

Issue

Can a tenant in local authority accommodation who uses the property for limited purposes and does not sleep there nevertheless satisfy the “tenant condition” in section 81 of the Housing Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) for the purposes of exercising the right to buy, if they only ever intend to recommence occupation of the property as a principal home once they have exercised that right?

Facts

On 4 November 2002, the Appellant, the London Borough of Hackney, granted the Respondent, Mr Weintraub, and his late wife a secure tenancy of 45a Forburg Road, London, N16 6HP (“the Property”). After his wife died in June 2008, the Respondent continued to live in the Property. However, as he was nervous of being in the Property alone overnight, he arranged for guests to stay with him. This arrangement came to an end in 2017. From then on the Respondent would visit the Property for a considerable portion of the week. He stayed with his daughter or with other relatives and friends for the remainder of the time. On 18 October 2017, the Respondent applied to exercise the right to buy the Property. That application was admitted and the Appellant offered him a 125-year lease of the Property at a ground rent of £9 per annum and a premium of £305,100. The offer was accepted on 29 March 2018. On 24 April 2018, however, the Appellant denied the Respondent’s right to buy the Property on the grounds that he did not reside at the premises as his only or principal home. He made a second application on 23 May 2018 which was also rejected on the same grounds. On 18 February 2019, the Appellant served a notice to quit on the Respondent on the grounds that he was no longer a secure tenant, since he ceased to satisfy the “tenant condition” under section 81 of the 1985 Act. On the same day, the Appellant issued a notice seeking possession. The Respondent then sought a declaration that he had a right to buy the Property pursuant to Part V of the 1985 Act. The Appellant sought possession of the Property by way of counterclaim. The trial judge dismissed the Respondent’s claim because he had no intention to return to the Property as a tenant but only once he owned the Property and could then refurbish it. That decision was overturned by the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Hamblen

Lord Burrows

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

30 April 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top