Council admitting tenants’ right to buy – Council serving prior and final notice to complete – Tenants claiming outstanding matters – Council’s representative giving assurance that right to buy would continue – Whether tenants’ notice claiming right to buy was effective – Whether council’s completion notices were valid or had been waived – High Court finding for tenants – Appeal dismissed
The plaintiffs were the tenants of a council house from 1975 to 1985. On June 13 1985, when the defendants became the landlords in place of the Greater London Council, they admitted the right to buy. After the property had been valued at £48,000 the defendant council served an offer notice on the plaintiffs, stipulating a price of £29,280. The plaintiffs were originally informed that the valuation figure included anticipated improvements by the council remedying defects in the property. However, in November 1987 it was corrected by a letter which stated that the valuation had been made with the defects taken into account. The plaintiffs replied setting out their case that the price should have been reduced for repairs.
In July 1989 the council purportedly served a landlords’ prior notice as to completion under section 140 of the Housing Act 1985, requesting completion within 56 days. The plaintiffs replied that the notice should have been served under section 16(2) of the Housing Act 1989, as substituted by section 6(2) of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, and that in any event there were matters outstanding in relation to the disrepair of the premises within section 16(12) of the Housing Act 1980 as amended. The council sent a final notice to complete stating that completion was required within 56 days otherwise the right to buy would be deemed to have been withdrawn. After various attempts to contact the council the plaintiffs’ solicitor spoke to the supervisor of the right to buy section and was told that since the council had received a response the right to buy would continue. Subsequently, the plaintiffs issued proceedings and applied for declarations as to the council’s obligation to repair and carry out remedial works, and claimed damages for breach of their covenant to repair and breach of statutory duty. The judge held that the completion notices had been valid despite referring to the wrong regime but that, in the light of the supervisor’s assurances, the final notice had been waived. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Although the council could not contract out of the statutory requirements of the right to buy scheme, parliament had not required the council to serve a prior notice followed by a final notice. These were matters which had been left to the discretion of the council, and therefore it could not be said that the council could not be estopped from raising the defence that the final notice had expired.
2. There was nothing in the statutory scheme which prevented the doctrines of waiver or estoppel operating in enforcing assurances given by the supervisor: see Daejan Properties Ltd v Mahoney [1995] 2 EGLR 75.
3. The plaintiffs had desisted from taking legal proceedings for an injunction pending repairs as a result of the clear undertakings given to them. Therefore they had acted in reliance upon the representation and it was inequitable for the council to enforce their right inconsistently with that representation.
Jonathan Small (instructed by TV Edwards) appeared for the council; Robert Latham (instructed by Marcus-Barnett) appeared for the respondents.
