Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal concerns the entitlement to occupy a council house owned by Sheffield City Council. The Appellant, who was a long-term foster son and personal representative of the deceased tenant, claimed succession rights to the tenancy under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985. The property had been occupied since 2005 by the Appellees, who held a secure tenancy granted by the Council. The County Court initially ruled in favor of the Appellees. The Appellant appealed the decision. The background reveals a complex history involving the Appellant’s long-standing foster relationship with the deceased tenant, the grant of a secure tenancy to the deceased, the Appellant’s periods of residence and absence, and subsequent possession proceedings initiated by the Council after the tenant’s death. The Council initially disputed the Appellant’s right to succeed but later conceded the residence requirement. The matter was reheard, resulting in dismissal of claims both by the Council against the Appellant and by the Appellant against the current occupiers.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant qualified as a successor to the deceased tenant under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985, given his status as a foster child.
2. The legal effect of possession orders and re-letting on the continuity or termination of secure tenancies, especially when possession orders are subsequently set aside on appeal.
3. The implications of concurrent or overriding tenancies granted following possession orders, and the rights and obligations arising between original and subsequent tenants.
4. The proper interpretation and application of statutory provisions in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Articles 8 and 14.
5. Whether the Court erred in relation to costs orders made in the proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended he was entitled to succeed to the tenancy as the deceased tenant’s foster son and family member under the Housing Act 1985.
• He argued that the Court should recognize his succession rights despite the absence of a formal adoption order, relying on a broad interpretation of "family" consistent with earlier Rent Act cases and human rights considerations.
• The Appellant challenged the termination of his tenancy by possession orders and re-letting, asserting that his tenancy vested automatically on the tenant’s death and was not lawfully terminated.
• He relied on case law supporting the automatic vesting of tenancy and the possibility of concurrent tenancies, asserting his intention and formal signs of continuing occupation rebutted any presumption of abandonment.

Appellees' and Council's Arguments

• The Appellees and Council contended that the Appellant did not qualify as a successor under the Housing Act, as foster children are excluded from the statutory definition of family members capable of succession.
• They argued that the possession order validly terminated the Appellant’s tenancy and that the subsequent secure tenancy granted to the Appellees was lawful and binding.
• They relied on precedent establishing that possession orders, once executed and not stayed, terminate secure tenancies, and that the grant of a new tenancy to the Appellees was valid.
• The Council maintained that the management and allocation of council housing is a matter for local authorities and Parliament, which justifies the statutory definitions and limitations on succession.
• Regarding costs, the Council submitted that it had not acted improperly and that no order for costs against it was warranted.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by examining the statutory framework of secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985, focusing on sections 87 and 113 which define who qualifies as a successor and who constitutes a family member. The Court acknowledged the Appellant’s close personal and familial relationship with the deceased tenant but emphasized the statutory definitions, particularly that "child" includes blood relations, stepchildren, and illegitimate children, but explicitly excludes foster children. The Court distinguished prior Rent Act cases that adopted a flexible approach to "family," noting that the Housing Act provides a closed list to ensure legal certainty and avoid protracted disputes.

Turning to human rights arguments under Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court accepted that the Appellant’s rights were engaged and that discrimination on the basis of foster status was arguable. However, it found the statutory exclusion objectively justified as a proportionate means of managing scarce housing resources and respecting Parliamentary policy decisions.

Regarding the effect of possession orders and subsequent re-letting, the Court reviewed relevant case law, notably Brent LBC v Botu and Hillgate House Ltd, concluding that possession orders, once executed and not stayed, effectively terminate secure tenancies. Acts done pursuant to such orders are lawful at the time and not retrospectively unlawful even if the orders are later set aside. The Court acknowledged complexities in property law concerning concurrent leases and assignments of reversions but refrained from deciding unsettled points, noting these were obiter dicta given the dismissal of the primary appeal.

The Court also addressed the issue of tenancy possession and intention to occupy, distinguishing the factual scenario from cases where tenants’ possessions remain on premises and caretakers are appointed. The exclusive occupation by the Appellees and absence of the Appellant’s possessions undermined claims of continued occupation under the tenant condition.

Finally, the Court considered costs applications, finding no sufficient grounds to order the Council to pay the Appellees’ costs, given the Council’s supportive stance towards the Appellees and the Appellant’s failure to seek a stay of possession orders.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the Appellant, as a foster child, did not qualify as a member of the deceased tenant’s family for the purposes of succession under the Housing Act 1985, and therefore did not succeed to the tenancy.

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim for possession against the current occupiers and dismissed the appeal. The cross appeal by the current occupiers regarding costs was also dismissed.

The decision underscores the strict statutory interpretation of "family" in the Housing Act 1985, prioritizing legal certainty and effective housing resource management over broader, more flexible definitions. It confirms that possession orders, once executed without a stay, terminate secure tenancies even if subsequently set aside, with lawful possession rights vesting in new tenants. The ruling highlights the importance of procedural safeguards such as seeking stays pending appeals in tenancy disputes. This judgment does not set new precedent on unsettled property law issues regarding concurrent tenancies but provides a cautionary analysis for future cases.