Section: Security of Tenure

Possession Can Discriminate Under Act

Manchester City Council took possession actions against two secure tenants (of different homes) due to complaints about anti-social behaviour.

Both tenants produced medical reports showing they suffered from a recognised mental illness, which caused them to act in an anti-social manner. They argued that, under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, it is unlawful for a landlord to discriminate against a person who is disabled by evicting them for any reason that is associated with their disability.

The 1995 Act makes the exception that possession action is justified if it is to protect the safety or health of the tenants or others.

The Judge ruled that both tenants' mental illnesses were not so severe as to be regarded as a disability as intended under the 1995 Act. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, but further decided that the Council would have been responsible for unlawful discrimination if:

Manchester City Council v Romano and Samari

Gay Partners Have Succession Rights

A private sector tenant died. For several years he had lived in his home with a gay partner in exactly the same sort of inter-dependent couple relationship as a heterosexual couple. The gay partner sought to succeed the tenancy, but the landlord refused succession on the grounds that:

The County Court ruled in favour of the landlord. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the tenant and the landlord further appealed to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords decided that the Human Rights Act 1998 required legal rules about occupation of homes to be re-read, as discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is unlawful. This meant the 1997 Rent Act had to be re-read, so that the words used would mean 'living together as if they were a husband and wife.' The gay partner could succeed the tenancy.

Godin-Mendoza v Ghaidan

Employment Determined Tenancy Status

Mr Godsmark was employed by Greenwich LBC at a residential special school. His terms of employment, which dated from 1992, required him to live on-site. He was not a statutory secure tenant.

He was moved to a different dwelling in 1993 and to another one in 1995. Both were on the same site.

The Council transferred the management of the school to a Trust in 2003. Mr Godsmark consequently became the Trust's employee. However, the Council remained Mr Godsmark's landlord, as it did not immediately transfer legal title of the site to the Trust.

Mr Godsmark claimed he had become a secure tenant with the Right to Buy. He argued that the any exclusion from being a statutory tenant was removed, either in consequence of his transfer to another dwelling or of him ceasing to be an employee of the Council.

The Court rejected his claim and Mr Godsmark appealed. The Appeal Judge dismissed the appeal, deciding that:

Godsmark v Greenwich LBC

Legal Update


Enter your email address to receive our e-bulletins advising on updates to the many sections of our website.

We will not share your email address with others or use it for any other purpose.

Reporting on April-June 2004

Quick Links

Log in for current issues of our two online journals

username: password:

Click 'subscribe' for a free access period and more information about subscriptions

Archive Issues Reporting Periods