The tenants served notice under s122 in 1991 to purchase their council house. The authority denied their right to buy. Nothing happened until June 2001 when the tenants served a second notice and received the same response. By reference to, and upon the basis of, the second notice the tenants took proceedings in the county court in which their right to buy was upheld. They then contended that the first notice remained valid and that therefore the price payable by them for the property should be calculated by reference to its value in March 1991. The aouthority appeal acceptance of that argument.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In the first set of proceedings in the county court the tenants had established their right to buy on the basis only of their second notice. The tenants had abandoned or withdrawn the first notice: ‘For my part I see no reason why abandonment should not, on the appropriate facts be a unilateral decision by a party not to pursue his right. Once such a decision has been made and communicated, or can be properly inferred, the right has been lost and should not be capable of being revived. If however prejudice to the victim of the delay has to be established, substantial delay may in itself give rise to an inference of prejudice.
I am satisfied that this conduct amounts to a clear abandonment of the 1991 claim or alternatively an implied withdrawal of their 1991 notice. I do not consider that on these particular facts it is necessary for the Defendant to prove prejudice as the intention to abandon or withdraw is so clearly evinced. Nevertheless if I am wrong in that conclusion I am equally satisfied that prejudice is clear.’
Judges:
Nelson J
Citations:
[2005] 34 EG 110
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Copping v Surrey County Council CA 21-Dec-2005
The tenants appealed rejection of their application that they should pay the price for their council property set on the first of two notices to buy it.
Held: As to whether the tenants had impliedly withdrawn their first notice: ‘[B]ecause of . .
Cited – Martin v Medina Housing Association Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The former tenant had set out to buy the council house, but had written to say that she did not intend to go ahead. Her son who had taken over the tenancy after her death now sought, twelve years later, to require the authority to proceed at that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Local Government
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.242429
