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

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/RTB/2018/0008

Property : 6, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Member

Date of inspection : 14 January 2019

Date of Decision : 14 January 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

For the reasons detailed below the appeal succeeds.

1. [NAME] have applied to the Respondent to exercise their right to buy the Property which is presently let by the Respondent to [NAME].

2. By notice to [NAME] dated 07/09/18 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].

2

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 the parties submitted written representations.

[NAME]’ Case 5. The main points of [NAME]’ case may be summarised as follows: a) the closest local shops are 3.1 miles away, and only accessible by car b) the bus stop for the service to Norwich is on the main road, a 15-minute walk away c) the Property is located in a small village and the only amenity is a small hair-dressers d) there are no aids or adaptations for the elderly, no handrails, wet-room e) there is a step up to the front and back doors f) there is no warden or contact care alarm system g) there are no street lights in the area h) there is a reasonable-sized garden to maintain i) the Property was not let to [NAME] for occupation by anybody 60 or over, and the previous tenants were a family with nobody in the household over the age of 60 j) the Property is in a close of 15 bungalows; one is privately owned, one has been empty for the past 18 months, and has been advertised for rent, but not specifically for the elderly. The majority of the other bungalows to people under 60 k) one of [NAME] is registered as disabled, and cannot cope with stairs.

The Landlord’s Case The Property was first let before January 1990, and is suitable for elderly occupation.

The Inspection 7. The Tribunal inspected the Property in the presence of the Mr [APPELLANT]. It is a semi-detached bungalow, approximately 50 years old, built of brick and tile. It is located in a small village, approximately 7 miles from Norwich, with a regular bus service to Norwich – the

3

bus-stop is just under 800m away. The route to the bus-stop only has a pavement for part of the way. The Property is located in a cul-de-sac, with a mild gradient. Access is via a flat path to the front door with a step and threshold, both approximately 15 cm high. There is a medium-sized garden on two sides. The accommodation consists of a hall, living room, modern fitted kitchen, utility, bathroom/WC with dated fittings, and 2 bedrooms. There is oil-fired central heating, which was said to function reliably, and also an immersion heater. There is some evidence of condensation resulting in mould in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms. Mr [APPELLANT] said that the plaster was loose in places, but the Tribunal saw no significant evidence of loose plaster.

The Decision 8. This appeal can only succeed if all the statutory criteria set out in paragraph 3 above are not met. The Respondent stated that the Property had first been let before 1 January 1990, and this was not challenged by [NAME].

9. In determining whether the Property is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons the Tribunal must taking into account location, size, design, heating system and ‘other features’. The Tribunal is required to assess whether the Property is particularly suitable for elderly persons, that is someone 60 or over, who is reasonably fit for that age, not someone with physical disabilities, or who needs a walking frame/wheelchair.

10. On the basis of their inspection, the Tribunal decided that the location, size, design and heating system are particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons. The Tribunal cannot take into consideration the personal circumstances of [NAME].

11. With regard to other properties nearby, the fact that one has been sold, and others are occupied by people under 60 is not relevant to this determination, which must be made on the facts of this case.

12. However, given the evidence provided by [NAME] as to their age, and the age of the previous occupants, as set out above, after the Inspection the Tribunal wrote to the Respondents, asking for evidence that the Property had been let for occupation by a [NAME]. The Respondents were unable to provide any evidence that this was the case.

13. Therefore not all the statutory criteria have been met, and this appeal succeeds.

Judge Lancaster 7 February 2019

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 subject property in

4

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 subject property.

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.