The Court in Yisroel Weintraub v London Borough of Hackney [2024] EWHC 845 (Ch) decides that, in relation to the right to buy, the Housing Act 1985 does not require an individual to imminently intend to use the relevant property as their principal or only home.
Mr Weintraub was fearful of spending nights in his council flat (the Property) that he occupied pursuant to a secure tenancy. Resultingly, he spent most nights at his daughter's house. During the day, he still used the Property for studying and eating in.
Mr Weintraub decided that he would apply for a right to buy the Property so that a flat could be built within the basement, allowing another individual to live at the Property and thus preventing him from being there alone overnight.
This application was refused because the Property was not being used "as his principal or only home" – a key condition for a tenant to qualify for the statutory right to buy.
This conclusion was supported by the trial judge. Further, it was decided that it was insufficient for Mr Weintraub to only intend to use it as his principal home once he owned it.
On appeal, Mr Weintraub argued that the judge had been incorrect when finding that the Property was not his principal home on the basis that the local authority had conceded that the Property was his home and no other property was identified as his principal home. The High Court appeal Judge agreed that to reach a conclusion that a dwelling-house is not a principal home it is necessary to ascertain that some other property is the principal home, although he found that the trial judge had indeed concluded that Mr Weintrub's daughter's house was the principal home.
Mr Weintraub also argued that not having an imminent intention to use the Property as his principal home was irrelevant. In agreement, the appeal Judge noted that currently living at a relevant property is not a requirement (Islington LBC v Boyle [2011]).
The judge did note that a 'real and genuine' intention to use a property as the only or principal home must be established. This intention could be ascertained due to his sincere fear of being alone overnight and his plan to convert his basement into a flat. The judge concluded that Mr Weintraub's intention to return to the Property as his only home, even though this was to happen only once he had exercised the right to buy, was sufficient to satisfy the tenant condition.
This highlights that, although a 'real and genuine' intention to use the relevant property as the only or principal home is necessary, the Courts can interpret this widely. The application of this case will be relevant not only for when assessing whether a tenant qualifies for the right to buy but also in the context of deciding whether a tenancy has lost its secure or assured status.
