The judgment in the recent Tower Hamlets case offers key learnings for social landlords.
We’re always on the look out for County Court judgments relevant to housing management as even though they’re not binding on other courts, in other cases they can be persuasive and show us how the decisions social landlords make on a daily basis in practice are likely to play out if challenged in court.
We were therefore interested to see a judgment from 21 July 2021 that dismissed a possession claim by on public law grounds in the case of Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v Ali.
Background
The claim was brought against Mr Ali, the son of a secure tenant of Tower Hamlets at the property in question, after his mother passed away. Mr Ali applied to succeed his mother under Tower Hamlets’ discretionary succession policy. She had been a successor herself, so Mr Ali was not entitled to succeed by statute.
Tower Hamlets refused Mr Ali’s application on the basis that he had failed to provide evidence that he had lived with his mother at the property as his principal home for 12 months prior to her death. Tower Hamlets was entitled to come to this conclusion on this basis under its policy, so long as it had considered all relevant evidence. Tower Hamlets had considered evidence in letters written by Mr Ali’s mother stating that Mr Ali did not live with her.
Mr Ali then sought a reconsideration of Tower Hamlet’s refusal of his application, relying on letters from neighbours explaining his mother’s denial of him living with her. Whilst Tower Hamlets did take the opportunity to reconsider, it held fast to her original position to refuse his succession. It is notable that under their policy Tower Hamlets were in fact not required to reconsider at all, but they did in this instance.
The possession claim was then issued and Mr Ali raised a public law defence, claiming that Tower Hamlets had cherry picked which letters to rely on when making its reconsidered but unchanged decision.
Judgment
The question for the judge was not one of whether Mr Ali should or should not be afforded the opportunity to succeed to his mother’s tenancy. Instead, it was whether Tower Hamlets had followed its policy when making its decisions. Tower Hamlets’ housing manager gave evidence. This evidence demonstrated that Tower Hamlets had not been flexible, had not considered all the relevant evidence and had therefore not met its own stated standards in terms of how it applies its succession policy.
The possession claim was therefore dismissed and Tower Hamlets were back at square one in terms of considering next steps in relation to Mr Ali’s occupation of the property and no doubt a renewed application to succeed his mother’s tenancy. It is likely significant costs were incurred by Tower Hamlets pursuing this claim which proved fruitless and it is likely that it was also ordered to pay Mr Ali’s legal costs.
Comment
This judgment should act as a warning to landlords about the critical importance of not just being aware of your statutory responsibilities when it comes to decision-making but of paying close attention to your policies and procedures, following them to the letter and being sure you have done so before litigating.
If you have had similar experiences at court we would be interested to hear from you or if you have any questions in relation to succession or public law challenges to possession more generally please contact Zoe Conroy.
