Leasehold flat — Exercise of right to buy — Appellant rejecting some of council’s terms in lease — Council refusing to accept amendments to lease — First instance decision modifying certain terms — Appeal against other terms in lease, breach of statutory duty, rent paid against purchase price and costs
The appellant (“G”) lived with his mother in a flat. In 1987 he gave the council notice under section 122 of the Housing Act 1985 that he intended to exercise the right to buy which, in the case of a flat, was the right to be granted a lease under the Act: section 138. The council sent a notice offering a 125-year lease at £10 pa for £25,000 (later reduced to £18,000). They also stated that the lease would be in the form of a standard draft lease and would contain “such other provisions as are reasonable in the circumstances”. G entered into correspondence with the council about some terms that he was not happy with. In 1990, he wrote complaining of delay in completing the new lease and in 1991 sent a letter stating: “we now require you to grant a lease of these premises to us for…£18,000 in accordance with the provisions of the draft lease herewith enclosed…”. The council replied that they were in the process of granting a substantial number of leases and to ensure that all those who purchased their leasehold interest were subject to the same rights and responsibilities, it was not their practice to amend the lease, in the interest of fairness and consistency. A notice of delay was sent by G to which the council replied that their lease was fair and reasonable and, further, that G had no right to set the rent off the purchase price. Subsequently, a standard lease was sent by the council to G to which he responded with an operative notice of delay. Proceedings followed in which the greater part was spent considering the terms of the proposed lease. The judge found, inter alia, that some of the terms should be modified to meet G’s objections. The appeal concerned: (1) the reasonableness of such terms to which G still objected; (2) damages for breach of statutory duty; (3) credit for rent paid against the purchase price; and (4) costs (G had been ordered to pay one-third of the council’s costs although his other claims had failed).
Held Orders accordingly.
1. The council had been determined to have a single standard form of lease which was administratively convenient as their thousands of tenants would then be governed by the same terms.
2. However, if standard terms were unreasonable, they did not cease to be unreasonable because they applied to many tenants. On the other hand, tenants in the same block or estate should in general be treated equally.
3. In considering the 11 complaints of G to the lease’s individual terms, the court found that the lease should state expressly that the tenant was “required to comply” with all “reasonable” regulations which the council made from time to time. Further, the section empowering the council to deal with any land or building near the flat as they though fit, should be deleted.
4. However, the court agreed with the judge there was no obligation on the council to grant a lease until all terms had been agreed. There had been no breach of statutory duty.
5. The council’s counter-notice was valid so that rent was not to be credited against the purchase price.
6. The judge was entitled to make the costs order.
The appellant appeared in person; Gillian Carrington (instructed by the solicitor to Enfield London Borough Council) appeared for the council.
