Tower Hamlets LBC v Rahanara BegumThe same problem might arise under the current legislation if an offer letter failed to state that it was
a “final offer” (see Housing Act 1996 section 193(7)).
Mrs Begum applied to Tower Hamlets council when she became homeless. In November 2000, the council accepted a duty to house her. It provided a non-secure tenancy of a council flat and put her on its allocation scheme for a permanent home.
In January 2002 it offered a secure tenancy of a different flat and, at the same time, gave notice for her to quit her temporary tenancy. Mrs Begum refused the offer and did not move out.
The council decided it had made a reasonable offer of a suitable property and in August 2002 began a claim for possession. Mrs Begum defended on the basis that the council had not fulfilled its homelessness duty. Legislation then in force had required a 21-day notice before a council could rely on an offer as fulfilling its duty and no such notice had been given. The county court dismissed the possession claim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal and granted possession. It decided the council’s homelessness duties did not include keeping Mrs Begum in one particular home. To argue that the council had acted in breach of duty, Mrs Begum should have appealed the offer or applied for judicial review of the possession claim. Neither step had been taken at the time. There was no role for the county court on the possession claim other than, in a suitable case, to adjourn for a judicial review to be pursued in the High Court.
Source
Housing Today
Reference
The same problem might arise under the current legislation if an offer letter failed to state that it was a “final offer” (see Housing Act 1996 section 193(7)).
No comments yet