The tenant served his notice under section 122 in 1999. The authority did not admit the claim as required by section 124 within four weeks, but tried ultimately by sending a letter which the tenant never received, to resolve its doubts as to whether the claim was being genuinely made by him rather than by an impostor. After two years of inactivity on both sides the tenant, who, as the judge found, at all times wished to proceed with the claim, notified the local authority that he proposed to do so. The local authority’s contention that the tenant had impliedly withdrawn his notice prevailed before the circuit judge. The tenant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There could be a withdrawal otherwise than in writing but on these facts there had been no such withdrawal: ‘Now, it is necessary . . to deal first with the primary submission of the appellant that an application can only be withdrawn in writing. It is correct, as he says, that section 122(3) says that the application may be withdrawn in writing. It does not say the application can only be withdrawn in writing, nor does it say the application must be withdrawn in writing. The judge rejected the appellant’s submissions that section 122(3) provided a sole and exhaustive method of withdrawing of applications. I reject the appellant’s submissions in that regard although it is a point that is by no means easy and is not, in my view, clearly established on authorities.’
Judges:
Peter Smith J
Citations:
[2005] 1 ALL ER 795, [2004] EWHC 2039 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Appeal from – Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant had exercised the right to buy his flat from the defendant. After the lease had been executed he sought to assert that the price should have been further reduced to allow for rent disregarded by the defendant because it been covered by . .
At First Instance – Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark HL 10-Jun-2009
The claimant sought a discount on the purchase of his flat from the appellant. The discount was to be increased because of the authority’s delay in responding to his application. The respondent now appealed against a finding that it must repay the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Local Government
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.242428