Yildiz v London Borough of Hackney

Ground 15A of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 contains a genuine time limit for possession proceedings following succession to an overcrowded tenancy. A landlord must rely on a section 83 notice that remains current and was served within the statutory period after the relevant date. If no such current notice exists, proceedings based on Ground 15A must themselves be begun within 12 months of the relevant date. An expired notice cannot support later proceedings, even if a fresh notice is served. The power to dispense with notice under section 83 does not remove the Ground 15A longstop.

The appellant succeeded to his father’s secure tenancy of a four-bedroom council house under section 89 of the Housing Act 1985. The Council served a notice of seeking possession on 23 June 2015, specifying Ground 15A and stating that proceedings could be begun after 20 July 2015 during the following 12 months.

Proceedings were issued on 8 August 2016, after the notice had lapsed. The County Court dispensed with the notice requirement under section 83(1)(b), and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed by His Honour John Hand QC. The issue was whether Ground 15A could be relied on where the notice had expired and proceedings had not been begun within 12 months of the relevant date.

1. Appeal allowed. The Council was not entitled to rely on Ground 15A because the proceedings were issued neither within 12 months of the relevant date nor while the notice remained in force.
2. Ground 15A(b) requires notice of the possession proceedings to have been served under section 83 less than 12 months after the relevant date. Section 83 provides that a notice ceases to be in force 12 months after the specified date. A spent notice therefore cannot constitute the statutory notice for proceedings begun later.
3. Where no relevant current notice exists, because none was served or because a notice expired, Ground 15A can be used only if the possession proceedings themselves were begun less than 12 months after the relevant date. The power under section 83(1)(b) to dispense with notice cannot be used to bypass that longstop.
4. This construction accords with the purpose of the time provisions identified in Newport City Council v Charles: a successor should not be disturbed so late after the previous tenant’s death that the property has become the successor’s established long-term home. It also prevents reliance on an earlier lapsed notice followed by a later notice to bring proceedings years after the relevant date.
5. Lady Justice Simler and Lord Justice Hamblen agreed with Lord Justice Newey’s reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal allowed on 24 July 2019.
• County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch: Deputy District Judge Harris dispensed with the notice requirement under section 83(1)(b) on 5 December 2016.
• County Court at Central London: His Honour John Hand QC dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 13 July 2018.