The right of secure tenants to buy their properties under appropriate circumstances is well known, but less obvious is what occurs when a tenancy which would give the tenant the right to buy is broken and then reinstated.
In a recent case, a tenant, who had been in possession of her flat since 1990, applied, under the ‘right to buy’ provisions, to purchase it in 2000. However, she did not pursue the purchase at that time. She then fell into arrears with her rent and in 2002 the local authority obtained a possession order. This was suspended on the condition that the arrears of rent were paid to the council. When this did not occur, the council wrote to her, in early 2003, advising her that as a result of her failure to pay the arrears, she had forfeited her secure tenancy. She was then, in legal parlance, a ‘tolerated trespasser’.
The tenant subsequently managed to pay off her arrears, which led to the possession order being set aside. However, her rent again fell into arrears and in 2005 the council applied for another possession order. She counterclaimed and requested the court to order the local authority to sell her the leasehold. The judge granted her request once the arrears had been cleared. The local authority appealed.
The question which was raised was whether the ending of the tenant’s secure tenancy, through the granting of a possession order, brought to an end her right to buy even after her tenancy had been revived once the possession order had been set aside?
The local authority took the view that the relevant legislation meant that the right to buy could not be invoked once the tenancy had lapsed – the tenant claimed that the restoration of the tenancy meant that she had remained a secure tenant throughout and thus still retained the right to buy the flat.
The court agreed with the local authority. Once the tenancy had to be given up (on the granting of the possession order), the right to buy terminated.
In a recent case, a tenant, who had been in possession of her flat since 1990, applied, under the ‘right to buy’ provisions, to purchase it in 2000. However, she did not pursue the purchase at that time. She then fell into arrears with her rent and in 2002 the local authority obtained a possession order. This was suspended on the condition that the arrears of rent were paid to the council. When this did not occur, the council wrote to her, in early 2003, advising her that as a result of her failure to pay the arrears, she had forfeited her secure tenancy. She was then, in legal parlance, a ‘tolerated trespasser’.
The tenant subsequently managed to pay off her arrears, which led to the possession order being set aside. However, her rent again fell into arrears and in 2005 the council applied for another possession order. She counterclaimed and requested the court to order the local authority to sell her the leasehold. The judge granted her request once the arrears had been cleared. The local authority appealed.
The question which was raised was whether the ending of the tenant’s secure tenancy, through the granting of a possession order, brought to an end her right to buy even after her tenancy had been revived once the possession order had been set aside?
The local authority took the view that the relevant legislation meant that the right to buy could not be invoked once the tenancy had lapsed – the tenant claimed that the restoration of the tenancy meant that she had remained a secure tenant throughout and thus still retained the right to buy the flat.
The court agreed with the local authority. Once the tenancy had to be given up (on the granting of the possession order), the right to buy terminated.
