Tenancies by deception

In 1983, Mrs Roberts exercised her right to buy her council home jointly with her son. She left that property in 1987 to become a resident warden in council-run sheltered accommodation. She rented out her house to tenants who claimed housing benefit.

In 1995 she applied for rehousing by the council in the light of her impending retirement as warden. On both the application form and on a home visit, she failed to mention the property she owned.

The council granted her the secure tenancy of another flat in 1996. She claimed housing benefit to help with the rent on that flat but did not disclose the home that she owned or the rent she received from it. The council discovered the truth when it matched her housing benefit with the details of the housing benefit it was paying to her tenants.

The council claimed possession on the statutory ground that the grant of the tenancy had been induced by a false representation. The rehousing manager gave evidence but the council did not call as a witness the officer who granted the tenancy.

The judge dismissed the claim. He said the council had not shown the false statements induced that officer to grant the tenancy: rehousing might have been approved on the basis that the council housed retired wardens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal. It decided direct evidence of the specific officer was not necessary. The council only had to show that the false statement had played a real and substantial part, even if not by itself a decisive part, in inducing the council to act as it did.

The council had shown by way of “fair inference” that the false statement was likely to have influenced the officer who granted the tenancy.