Property purchased for demolition — Housing authority failing to serve notice to vacate on tenant within reasonable time — Defective notice served — Landlord incurring financial loss in buying off tenant — Whether housing authority liable in damages
A demolition order was served in respect of adjacent properties at 39 and 41 Trinity Rise, Lambeth, London SW2. No appeal was received, so the demolition order became effective. The applicants bought the two properties, no 39 having a sitting tenant. They intended to demolish both houses and build a block of flats, together with a local housing association. The work could not commence due to the presence of the tenant at no 39. If Lambeth had served a notice under section 270 of the Housing Act 1985 in good time there would not have been a problem. The effect of such a notice would have been to override any rights of security the tenant might have. It would have enabled the owner to obtain possession and proceed with the demolition.
When the notice was finally served it was in the wrong form and did not comply with the terms of section 270. The applicants commenced proceedings against the tenant for possession, but in the light of the defective notice they decided that the only sensible course was to buy the tenant off. They paid him the sum of £8,000 and the tenant gave up possession of the premises, which were then demolished. The applicants then sought judicial review of Lambeth’s failure to serve a section 270 notice within a reasonable time on the tenant and a notice to quit, as a result they claimed to have suffered financial loss and claimed damages.
Held The claim for damages failed.
1. The duty to demolish imposed upon the authority under section 267 of the 1985 Act did not arise until the property was vacated. The owner of the property was not in breach of his duty to demolish by delay on the part of the housing authority to serve a section 270 notice.
2. There was no power in the housing authority of their own volition to withdraw a demolition order once it became operative.
3. The coming into effect of a demolition order did not in itself give the landlord an unqualified right to possession or the expectation of possession of the property.
4. The sole purpose of section 270 was to facilitate the demolition of the property by making a provision whereby a notice was served which required the tenant or occupier to give up possession so that the obligation to demolish came into existence. Any breach of the notice to quit was enforced by the penal sanction in section 270; none of which led to the conclusion that section 270 conferred on the landlord any right to damages if there was a breach of the section.
5. The purpose of the section was concerned solely with the demolition of housing unfit for human habitation so that people did not have to live in unfit conditions. It had nothing to do with giving rights to damages to landlords when an authority was in breach of section 270. Accordingly, the claim for damages failed.
6. However, the applicants were entitled to a declaration that the authority had failed to comply with their duty under section 270 to issue a notice.
David Daly (instructed by Parker Arrenberg Dawson & Cobb) appeared for the applicants; Michael Magloire (instructed by the solicitor to Lambeth Borough Council) appeared for the housing authority.
