When refusing to allow a local authority's claim for possession, on the basis that the tenant had lost her security of tenure as she had not lived in the property for four years, the judge failed to resolve the issue as to whether the property was the tenant's principal home.
Case Name
Islington LBC v Boyle, Court of Appeal, 6/12/2011
Facts
Islington had granted B a secure tenancy of a property and she lived there with her partner (X) and children. The relationship deteriorated and X moved out and bought a house. Their eldest child was severely autistic and, in 2004, in view of his aggressive conduct and inappropriate behaviour, B and X decided that she and her daughters would move out of the local authority property to X's house and X would live in the local authority property with their son. In 2008 Islington issued possession proceedings alleging that B had lost her security of tenure because she failed to occupy the property as her only or principal home.
Decision
B's evidence failed to persuade the judge that despite the fact she was no longer living at the property, it nevertheless remained her principal home. However, the appeal court concluded that justice could not be done without the facts being re-evaluated and accordingly the case had to be re-heard.
What This Means For Social Landlords
This is a very unusual decision and one that is difficult to understand. On the face of it, B was obviously not living at the property of which she was a tenant and had not done so for four years. As such, she should have lost her security of tenure. Yet the case went to the Court of Appeal and has now been sent back to the county court for a re-hearing!
This shows how, sometimes, what appear to be straightforward cases can become unpredicatable, very complicated and expensive.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
