The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was vandalised, and he had left a note to say they he lived elsewhere. He said the note had been intended only to mislead the vandals. When visited, the windows were smashed, and all property removed. The council had the note and assumed a surrender. The council, having secured the flat and told him they had treated it as abandoned, nevertheless continued at first with the right to buy process, but then claimed the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The council’s appeal failed. The facts found did not support the contention that the lease had been surrendered. The note left by the tenant was addressed not to the council, but to the vandals. The landlord’s acts were consistent with good management of its housing stock, and need not be explained only by a surrender. If there has been a relinquishment of possession by the tenant and an acceptance of that relinquishment by the landlord, consistent only with a cesser of the tenancy, in circumstances which render it inequitable for the tenant or the landlord to dispute that the tenancy has ceased, then subsequent acts by one party which suggest that that was not what that party intended, perhaps because he did not appreciate the effect of what he was doing, cannot be relevant.
Judges:
Pill LJ, Chadwick LJ
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2460, (1997) 30 HLR 822
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – City of Bradford Metropolitan Council v McMahon and McMahon CA 21-Apr-1993
The right to buy a council house is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental, and that right disappears on the death of the tenant because there was no secure tenancy left upon which to base the right: ‘It is a . .
Cited – Tarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd CA 1983
The tenant disputed whether he had surrendered the property in the lease.
Held: The court considered the basis of an implied surrender: ‘In my judgment, it is indeed estoppel that forms the foundation of the doctrine. The doctrine operates . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough Croydon ex parte Toff 1988
The tenant having left the property, the landlord relet them.
Held: The act of the landlord meant it would be inequitable to hold the lease to continue. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hardy and others v Fowle and Another ChD 26-Oct-2007
Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142858