Guinan v Enfield London Borough Council: CA 1996

The landlord council and tenant claiming his right to buy disputed the reasonableness of terms proposed by the council for inclusion in the lease. The tenant served a RTB6 notice and the landlord served a RTB7 Counter notice relying on the reasonableness of the terms proposed. The tenant served a RTB8 operative notice of delay contending that the RTB7 Counter notice was invalid because there was action for the landlord to take, that is to agree reasonable terms.
Held: Some of the proposed terms were reasonable, but others unreasonable. As to the validity of the Counter notice, the court held that a Counter notice is valid if the landlord in good faith believes that he has in law the right to insist on the terms he is offering, the county court being at hand to settle disputes under section 181.
(1996) 29 HLR 456
Housing Act 1985181
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Dennett CA 7-Nov-2007
The defendant tenant had been delayed for over five years by the claimant in buying his council house. He stopped paying rent in protest, and the council brought possession proceedings. He then paid his rent and continued in his counterclaim to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.260306