Section: Right to Buy

Inference of False Statement Sufficient

Mrs Roberts successfully exercised the Right to Buy of her council home jointly with her son in 1983. Four years later, she left the property and took up a post with Waltham Forest LBC as a resident warden in one of its sheltered accommodation homes. On taking up her new job, Mrs Roberts rented out her home and the tenants claimed Housing Benefit.

In 1995, Mrs Roberts was approaching retirement as a warden. This meant she would have to give up her home in the sheltered block, so she made an application to the Council for alternative housing. She did not disclose the property she owned on her application for housing.

In 1996, Waltham Forest Council granted Mrs Roberts a secure tenancy of another flat. She claimed Housing Benefit and in doing so failed to disclose the home she owned or the rental income from it.

When the Council discovered the true position from cross-referencing Housing Benefit records, it issued proceedings for possession on the statutory ground that the grant of the tenancy had been induced by a false representation.

At the court hearing, the Rehousing Manager gave evidence, but the Council failed to call as a witness the officer who actually granted Mrs Roberts her tenancy. This led the Judge to decide that the Council had not sufficiently shown that the false statements had induced the officer that granted the tenancy to do so. The Judge concluded that the tenancy may have been approved in consequence of the Council's policy on rehousing retired wardens and so dismissed the claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Council's appeal. It decided that it was not necessary to provide direct evidence from the officer who actually granted the tenancy. Showing that the false statement played a significant part (even if not a decisive one) in inducing the Council to make the offer of accommodation was sufficient. This in effect showed by way of fair inference that the false statement was likely to have influenced the officer who granted the tenancy.

Waltham Forest LBC v Roberts

Applicant Died During Delay in Processing

A complaint was made to the Ombudsman by Miss M about the way Leeds CC dealt with her mother's (Mrs M) application to buy her home under the Right to Buy scheme. Mrs M had lived in the same house for 37 years, and, therefore, was entitled to the maximum 60% discount.

Delays in processing her Right to Buy applications meant the Council did not provide Mrs M with an offer to purchase her home within the statutory time scales, but caused a delay of 44 weeks. Shortly before completing the transaction Mrs M died, thereby denying her family the chance to inherit their original home.

The Ombudsman's report recommends that the Council should:

permit Mrs M's family to buy the house for the sum at which it was valued on the 25 September 2002, being the date that action was taken under the Right to Buy application;
take steps to manage applications under the Right to Buy scheme in accordance with the statutory times scales; and
in the meantime, ensure that no applicant is disadvantaged by delays beyond his or her control.

Ombudsman Report No. 03/C/12234

Section: Right to Buy

Inference of False Statement Sufficient

Applicant Died During Delay in Processing

Legal Update

Reporting on July-Sept. 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods