Burrell, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

Under the statutory right-to-buy scheme, a tenant’s failure to comply with a second notice to complete causes the notice exercising the right to buy to be deemed withdrawn under section 141(4) of the Housing Act 1985. After that statutory protection has ended, any further extension of time is a matter for the landlord. A landlord may then treat a complete failure to take the steps necessary for completion by the extended deadline as bringing the transaction to an end. The case is not confined to whether a small balance of rent remains unpaid; the court must consider the tenant’s overall compliance with the completion requirements.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Lambeth’s decision to withdraw her right to buy 5 Listowell Close. She had served a right-to-buy application and received a notice under section 125 of the Housing Act 1985, but did not serve the required notice of intention to proceed within the statutory period. The Council later served first and second notices to complete under sections 140 and 141. After extending the completion deadline to 5 July 2004, the Council treated the transaction as at an end when the claimant’s solicitors took no effective steps to complete by that date. The central issue was whether the Council was entitled to refuse a further extension and withdraw the transaction, particularly where only £7.14 in rent arrears remained.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
2. Under section 141(4) of the Housing Act 1985, failure to comply with a second notice to complete causes the notice exercising the right to buy to be deemed withdrawn at the end of the period stated in that notice. The Council had extended the period once, but the claimant did not comply with the extended deadline.
3. Once the statutory deeming provision took effect in January 2004, the claimant no longer had the protection of the statutory right-to-buy scheme. Any later extension granted by the Council was therefore a matter for the Council’s own decision, in the same way as an extension in an ordinary conveyancing transaction.
4. The Council was entitled to refuse a further extension after the claimant and her solicitors had failed entirely to take the steps necessary to complete by 5 July 2004. The issue was not merely the outstanding £7.14 rent arrears. The material default was the total failure to complete or take the necessary completion steps. Whether the default was attributable to the claimant, her solicitors, or both did not affect the Council’s position.