Turley, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Wandsworth & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a judicial review challenge brought by Ms. Turley against the London Borough of Wandsworth for not succeeding her long-term partner, Mr. Doyle, as the secure tenant after his death. The court examined whether the additional condition for succession of a secure tenancy, which applies to unmarried couples, constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Applying statute and precedents, the court held that the additional condition is justified and proportional. Consequently, it does not conflict with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment
Mr Justice Knowles:
Introduction
This case concerns social housing. Where two people are married or are civil partners and one is the tenant under a (periodic) secure tenancy of a dwelling-house but the other is not, then (subject to an exception which is not material for present purposes) the person who is not the tenant will be qualified to succeed the person who is, if he or she occupies the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.
However, in the case of secure tenancies granted before 1 April 2012 in England, and secure tenancies granted even after that date in Wales, where those two people are not married or civil partners but live together as if they are, then the person who is not the tenant has to meet an additional condition. In order to succeed the tenant, the person living with the tenant as if a spouse or as if a civil partner must also have resided with the tenant throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant’s death (“the additional condition”). This is what, on the face of it, is provided by section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 , before the introduction, so far as England is concerned, but not Wales, of section 86A of the Housing Act 1985 by the Localism Act 2011 (“the Localism Act”).
The challenge by way of judicial review
It is the presence of the additional condition that has led to this hearing. The Claimant, Ms Turley, challenges by way of judicial review the decision of her council, London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”), that she does not succeed Mr Doyle, a secure tenant, on his death. Ms Turley’s challenge goes to the additional condition and thus to the legislation itself. Accordingly the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“the Secretary of State”) has participated as an interested party.
Permission to bring this judicial review was granted by Foskett J on 19 March 2014. I mention for completeness that there was arguably delay on Ms Turley’s part before bringing the challenge. This was a matter also reserved by Foskett J to this substantive hearing. In all the circumstances of the case I consider the matter better decided on its merits, notwithstanding the arguable delay.
Essential Facts
For the purpose of this decision I take the essential facts to be as follows:
Mr Doyle was the secure tenant of a flat in Battersea Park Road, London SW8 (“the flat”). The tenancy was granted before 1 April 2012.
Mr Doyle was the long-term p