Under Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985, secure tenants of a local authority can exercise a right to buy their property. Both secure and assured tenancies require tenants to occupy the property as their only or principal home. 

Being temporarily absent from a property does not restrict an individual from occupying that property as their main or only home provided that they can show an intention to return within a reasonable time.

In the recent High Court case of Weintraub v Hackney LBC [2024], the court offered guidance on what constitutes occupying a property as your ‘only or principal’ home and the effect of this on a secure tenant’s right to buy. These principles can presumably also be applied to assured tenancies. 

The tenant in this case had been granted a joint secure tenancy with his wife. The tenant did not like living alone and set to arrange for others to stay with him at the property upon the passing of his wife. However, his family were concerned about this arrangement and agreed that the tenant should exercise his right to buy, and upon doing so, covert the basement of his property into a flat for a family member to live in. Whilst these works were undertaken the tenant would spend his nights with other family members away from the property to ensure he wasn't alone. 

The issue of this case arose when the tenant’s right to buy was refused by the local authority. The substantive argument for this refusal was that the tenant had not been occupying the property as his only or principal home and therefore was not a secure tenant and had lost his right to buy. 

Upon the tenant issuing proceedings seeking a declaration that he was entitled to this right, the court initially found in favour of the local authority. An appeal was permitted by the High Court on the basis that the trial judge had not addressed the relevant issues or substantially considered case law. 

The local authority did not dispute that the tenant had been using the property as a home. Therefore, the court considered that for the property not to be the tenant’s ‘only or principal’ home, the local authority had to identify another property that was being used as such. The local authority failed to do so. It was also apparent that the tenant had a clear intention to return to the property following the right to buy being exercised and conversion works completed. The contingency nature of these aspects did not matter to the intention. 

This case offers significant clarification on how an individual may continue to occupy their property as their ‘only or principal’ home, even when not appearing to live there. It also showcases the importance of considering whether there is a genuine intention to return to a property, even if that is a contingent one. 

Time will tell and each case will need to be considered on its individual facts.  

For more information on the issues raised in this article, contact Mollie McQuade.