VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Upholds Tenant's Right to Buy Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant could buy their rented property because the property did not meet the criteria for denying the right to buy under the Housing Act 1. The Tribunal noted that the property was not particularly suitable for elderly people and had not been rented to someone over 60 before 1990.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to buy their property if the property does not meet the criteria specified in Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985.

Topics

right to buytenancy lawhousing act

Provisions

Schedule 5 Housing Act 1985

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found that the property did not meet the criteria for denying the tenant's right to buy under the Housing Act 1985.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal upheld the tenant's right to buy their property, finding that the property was not particularly suitable for elderly persons and had not been let to a person aged 60 or more before 1 January 1990.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/RTB/2019/0001

Property : 5, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] under Schedule 5 Housing Act 1985 as amended (‘the Act’)

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Member

Date of inspection : 10/04/19

Date of Decision : 10/04/19

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

For the reasons detailed below the appeal succeeds.

1.The Appellant has applied to the Respondent to exercise his right to buy the Property which is presently let by the Respondent to the Appellant.

2. By notice to the Appellant dated 17/12/18 the Respondent refused the right to buy stating that; a) the Property was first let before 1 January 1990 b) that it is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons c) that it was let for occupation by a [NAME].

The Law 3. The principal statute which sets out the qualifying conditions to the right to buy is the Act. Schedule 5 deals with those cases where the right to buy does not apply and the Respondent relies on paragraph 11, the relevant provisions of which say;

11(1) The right to buy does not arise if the dwelling house a) is particularly suitable, having regard for its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by elderly persons, and b)was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person who was [NAME] 60 years or [NAME] (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person)

11(2) In determining whether a dwelling house is particularly suitable no regard shall be had to the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his

11(6) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1 January 1990.

The Appeal 4. This appeal was lodged within the eight-week statutory period allowed for such appeals. Neither party requested a hearing, but submitted written representations.

The Appellant’s Case 5. The main points of the Appellant’s case may be summarised as follows: a) the location is very remote, 6 miles from nearest doctor etc. Anyone unable to drive would struggle to live at the Property b) when the Appellant moved into the Property he was assured by the Respondent that he would keep his right to buy c) both the Appellant and his wife are under 60

The Respondent’s Case 6. The Respondent made no written representations prior to the inspection. However, in an email dated 23/04/19, in response to a letter from the Tribunal on 10/04/19 requesting further information, the Respondents informed the Tribunal that the Property was first let on 12/03/12 and was not let to a [NAME].

The Inspection 7. The Tribunal inspected the Property in the presence of the Appellant. It is a modern barn- style bungalow, built approximately 8 years ago, of traditional brick and timber frame construction, with double-glazed windows and doors, and central heating by air-source heat pump. It is located in a village, with no public transport within 800m, although there is a farm shop within 800m, but this only sells a very limited range of goods. It has gardens front and rear, with 2 parking spaces, and the access is flat with no steps. The accommodation consists of a hall, fitted kitchen/diner, sitting room, 2 double bedrooms and a bath/WC with shower over the bath.

The Decision 8. As the Property has not been let for occupation by a [NAME], and was not first let before 01/01/90, the criteria set out in paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the Act have not all been met. 9. It is therefore the Tribunal’s decision that this appeal succeeds.

Judge Lancaster 30/04/19

Caution: For the purpose of reaching a decision the Tribunal inspected the subject property. Such inspection is not a structural survey and only takes a few minutes. Any comments about the condition of the properties in this Statement of Reasons are made as a result of casual observation rather than a detailed inspection. Please do not rely upon such comments as a guide to the structural condition of the properties.

4

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The property must not meet all the statutory criteria outlined in Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985.
  • The property was not first let before 1 January 1990.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The property is particularly suitable for elderly persons.
  • The property was let to a tenant aged 60 or more.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the tenant could buy their rented property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1985, specifically Schedule 5, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the property was not particularly suitable for elderly persons and had not been let to a person aged 60 or more before 1990.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to buy their rented property if the property does not meet the criteria for denying the right to buy.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the property's suitability for elderly persons and the date it was first let.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.