Scinto v London Borough of Newham

A landlord cannot serve a first notice to complete while a relevant matter, previously notified in writing by the tenant, remains outstanding and undetermined. Although disrepair alone is not ordinarily a matter relating to the grant, the parties may make repair works relevant to the conveyance by agreement or conduct. A clear representation that the right-to-buy process will remain suspended until repairs are completed may also found promissory estoppel where it was intended to affect legal relations, relied upon, and caused detriment. An invalid first notice cannot support a valid second notice.

A secure tenant began a right-to-buy process in 1999. The landlord’s offer identified structural defects. Following a structural survey, the parties agreed that the process would be held in abeyance while investigations and any necessary repairs were undertaken. The landlord later served notices under section 140 of the Housing Act 1985 before the repairs were completed.

The tenant sought a declaration that she could proceed on the original offer terms. The county court found that the notices were invalid and that the landlord was subject to promissory estoppel. The landlord appealed, challenging the statutory construction, the findings supporting estoppel, reliance and detriment, and the inclusion of the tenant’s son in the original offer.

1. Appeal dismissed. The landlord’s notices under section 140 of the Housing Act 1985 were invalid.
2. The reference in section 140(4)(c) to a written notice served by the tenant was not confined to the notice contemplated by section 140(1)(b). The tenant’s solicitor had given prior written notice that the repair works were outstanding. Those works remained undetermined, so the landlord was forbidden by section 140(4)(c) from serving the first notice.
3. Disrepair by itself does not entitle a tenant to defer completion and is not ordinarily a matter relating to the grant. The present case was materially different because the parties’ agreement and subsequent conduct made completion dependent on the repairs. The repairs therefore became a matter relating to the grant within section 140(5).
4. The findings supported promissory estoppel. The landlord had made a clear and unequivocal representation that it would not proceed until the repairs were effected. The representation was intended to affect legal relations. The tenant relied on it by not taking steps to proceed by other means and suffered detriment. The landlord acted inconsistently with the representation by serving the notices.
5. The court left open whether the agreement was revocable on reasonable notice, because no purported revocation preceded the first notice. The tenant’s later request for information did not abandon her contention that repairs should be carried out first.
6. The son’s inclusion in the 1999 offer did not invalidate the process. The tenant was herself entitled to exercise the right to buy and could, with her son’s agreement, elect to have the conveyance made in her name alone.

The promissory-estoppel finding was unnecessary once the statutory ground was established, but independently supported the result.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Bow County Court dismissed.
• Bow County Court: HHJ Barnett QC gave judgment for the tenant on 5 September 2008, holding that the repairs were an outstanding relevant matter and that reliance on the notices was in any event barred by promissory estoppel.