Hanoman v Southwark

A landlord receiving a notice claiming the right to buy must decide within the statutory four-week period whether to admit or deny the tenant’s right, giving reasons for denial. The landlord has no power unilaterally to defer the decision or treat the application as withdrawn because the tenant fails to provide further information within a short, unilateral deadline. A consensual deferral may be agreed, but the statutory duty continues. Mere inactivity or delay by the tenant does not establish withdrawal, waiver or estoppel. The tenant must know that the right is being abandoned, and the landlord must have acted on that basis. A local authority cannot waive or surrender its statutory powers and duties by estoppel. The appeal was allowed and the tenant’s notice was declared still valid and subsisting.

The appellant had served a notice claiming the right to buy under Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985. Southwark questioned whether he was the secure tenant because the signature on the application differed from that on the tenancy agreement. It requested identification and later stated that, unless information was supplied within seven days, the application would be withdrawn.

The appellant did not receive that letter. Southwark closed its file and treated the application as withdrawn. The County Court dismissed his claim, holding that his inactivity amounted to withdrawal. The central issues on appeal were whether the landlord had complied with its statutory duty to decide the application, and whether the appellant’s conduct amounted to withdrawal, waiver or estoppel.

1. Appeal allowed. The County Court’s order was set aside. The appellant’s notice claiming the right to buy remained valid and subsisting and had not been withdrawn or waived. Southwark remained under a duty to respond under section 124 of the Housing Act 1985.
2. Section 124 imposed a clear duty to serve, within four weeks, a written notice either admitting the tenant’s right or denying it and stating the reasons. The landlord could not postpone the decision indefinitely or extend the statutory period unilaterally. A consensual deferral could be agreed in an appropriate case, but no such agreement existed here. The duty was continuing, so a late decision remained possible, although the failure to decide within four weeks was prima facie a breach.
3. The landlord was entitled to investigate whether the applicant was a secure tenant and could request further information. The tenant was not, however, under a statutory duty to pursue the landlord or provide extra-statutory information merely because it was requested. If the information was insufficient, the landlord had to deny the right, leaving the issue to be determined if necessary in subsequent proceedings.
4. The tenant’s failure to respond did not amount to withdrawal. He had not received the relevant letter, had been expecting the authority to contact him, and had consistently wished to pursue the application. Mere delay was insufficient. Withdrawal, waiver or estoppel by conduct required conduct reasonably indicating abandonment, knowledge that the right was being given up, and action by the opposing party on that basis. The authority had not acted in reliance on any informed abandonment. The reasoning was consistent with Peyman v Lanjani, the discussion in Graham v The Northern Joint Police Board, and the approach adopted in Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Hislop.
5. London Borough of Sutton v Swan established that loss of secure-tenant status could defeat the right to buy. That was the true ratio of the decision; inactivity did not, without more, withdraw the notice. A local authority could not waive or surrender its statutory powers and obligations by estoppel, as recognised in Western Fish v Penrith Borough Council.
6. The court rejected the human-rights and alternative statutory arguments. Relief was confined to a declaration, with costs assessed at £100. Enforcement was stayed for 14 days, with any further stay to be sought from the Court of Appeal.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): Appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Cowell sitting at Central London County Court on 5 June 2003. Appeal allowed; the order below was set aside and declaratory relief granted.