Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Templeman,Lord Griffiths,Lord Lowry,Lord Mustill,Lord Slynn of Hadley |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] UKHL J0618-2 |
| Date | 18 June 1992 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1992] UKHL J0618-2
House of Lords
Lord Templeman
Lord Griffiths
Lord Lowry
Lord Mustill
Lord Slynn of Hadley
My Lords,
For about two and a half years the appellant Mr Gary Thomas made his home with his brother Webster in a council house 29, Juniper Court, Morris Road, London E15 which belonged to and was let by the respondent local authority the London Borough Council of Waltham Forest to Webster. The letting was a secure letting for the purposes of the Housing Act 1985 and the tenant, Webster, had security of tenure. The appellant was a person contingently qualified to succeed to the tenancy by virtue of section 87 of the Act of 1985. That section, so far as material, provides that:
"A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy if he occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death and either —
( a he is the tenant's spouse, or
( b) he is another member of the tenant's family and has resided with the tenant throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant's death; …"
Section 113 of the Act of 1985 defines a tenant's family in terms which include a brother.
On 11 April both brothers changed their home to 336 Stocksfield Road, Walthamstow, London El7 which was let to Webster by the respondents. Webster ceased to be a secure tenant of 29 Juniper Court and became a secure tenant of 336 Stocksfield Road. Webster died on 21 April 1988.
The appellant now claims to have succeeded to Webster's secure tenancy of 336 Stocksfield Road under section 87 of the Act of 1985 because:-
(a) He occupied 336 Stocksfield Road as his only home when his brother died.
(b) He was a member of the brother's family and
(c) he had resided with his brother throughout the period of 12 months ending with his brother's death.
The respondents claim that the appellant did not succeed to the secure tenancy of 336 Stocksfield Road because he had not resided at 336 Stocksfield Road for 12 months before his brother died.
My Lords, section 87 does not stipulate that the successor must have resided at a particular house for 12 months but only that he should have resided with the deceased tenant for that period. The effect of section 87 is to ensure that a qualified member of the tenant's family who has made his home with the tenant shall not lose his home when the tenant dies but shall succeed to that home and to the secure tenancy which protected both the tenant and the successor while the tenant was alive and which shall continue to protect the successor after the death of the tenant. In order to qualify, a successor must have resided with the tenant during the period of 12 months ending with the tenant's death. This restriction ensures that section 87 cannot be exploited, that there will be no difficulty in identifying a genuine successor and that only bona fide claims to have been residing with the tenant shall succeed. This protection for the local authority does not require the residence to have taken place for the whole 12 months in the house to which succession is claimed. The section only requires residence with the tenant for the period of 12 months and I see no justification for implying any other requirement.
When a tenant and a potential successor move from one council house to another the tenant does not lose the protection of a secure tenancy and there is no good reason why the potential successor should lose the protection which he has obtained or is in the course of obtaining under section 87. When a tenant who is not already a council tenant applies for a council house, the local authority, before granting a secure tenancy finds out whether the council house will be occupied by the tenant alone or whether the council house will become the joint home of the tenant and a member of the tenant's family who has been residing with the tenant. The local authority will know whether if they let the council house to the tenant the house will also be occupied by a potential successor who has made his home with the tenant. If the tenant's death is untimely that is to say within one year of the date of the letting, there is no reason why the potential successor should lose his home if he has in fact resided with the tenant for 12 months. In the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial