The Court of Appeal has backed a decision by Brent London Borough Council to offer a homeless woman a tenancy of a flat in Brondesbury Park, NW6, rather than of her present council accommodation in Willesden Green, NW2.
Tenant Nathalie Sharp sought a tenancy of her Willesden Lane flat, which had been occupied by her parents prior to their deaths. She maintained that, after the tenancy had passed from her father to her mother, she had occupied the flat with her mother for more than a year, and argued that the council should grant her the tenancy as a statutory second successor under the Housing Act 1985.
The council, however, did not accept that she had been living in the property for a year, and obtained an unopposed order for possession of the premises. They claimed that the flat, in Joules House, Christchurch Avenue, Brondesbury Park, constituted suitable accommodation for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
In allowing the council’s appeal against an earlier county court ruling, Laws LJ held that the question of the suitability of the offer was not in dispute, and that the judge had erred in considering allocation issues. He added that the council’s decision was “justified for the preservation of their equitable housing policy”.
Simon Brown LJ agreed, stating that, under Part VII of the 1996 Act, Sharp was entitled only to suitable accommodation and had no right to be housed in any particular property.
The court also rejected claims that Sharp’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed.
Sharp v Brent London Borough Council Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Laws and Longmore LJJ) 14 April 2003.
Ranjit Bhose (instructed by KSB Law) appeared for the appellants; Arthur Moore (instructed by JD Spicer & Co) appeared for the respondent.
References: PLS News 15/4/03
