Daughter loses succession case
The Court of Appeal has told a woman that she cannot take over her late mother’s council property because her father lost his secure tenancy by leaving the family home.
Elain Hickin had argued that she was entitled to take on her mother’s tenancy after her death in 2007. She had lived with her parents in a home let by Solihull Council between 1980 and 2007, when her mother died. Her parents’ marriage had broken down in 2001, and Mr Hickin had left the house.
When Mrs Hickin died in 2007, the council started possession proceedings, as there was no secure tenant in the property. But Ms Hickin appealed against the council’s decision, arguing that she should keep the home as the only person living with her mother at the time of her death.
Initially, the council was granted a possession order, but this was then reversed by a circuit judge on appeal. Solihull then took the case to the Court of Appeal, which rejected Ms Hickin’s argument.
Passing judgement, Judge Stephen Oliver-Jones said Mrs Hickin’s tenancy had ceased to be secure when on her death it passed to her estranged husband. This was because Mr Hickin no longer lived at the property.
He said: ‘Consequently the tenancy ceased to be a secure tenancy; it was therefore effectively determined by the notice. In those circumstances, Miss Hickin was neither entitled to succeed to the tenancy nor remain in the house once the notice had expired.’
Solihull Council has offered Ms Hickin alternative accommodation. John King, director of housing for Solihull Community Housing, the council’s arm’s-length management organisation, said: ‘We worked very hard to try to resolve this case and find Miss Hickin alternative accommodation without the need for expensive litigation.
‘Whilst sympathising with her circumstances, we have to be fair to the families that we have waiting for a home of this size. We will of course continue to work with Miss Hickin to find her another home that is suitable to her needs.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
kass | 04/08/2010 1:32 pm
How many rooms we are talking about?
If it was more than 2 room property fine but if it was a 2 room home why go through all that, with the same money/man power and other resources spent in the proceedings you could have built a new home.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 04/08/2010 2:06 pm
Just for clarification Kass, you're mentioning the resources used in this case, yet still roundly argue that legal aid should be reinstated to all tenants to take action as necessary? As to why Solihull did it, it's the danger of allowing a precedent in your policy that would allow others to follow.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Only One | 04/08/2010 2:27 pm
Kass - you miss the point again. Clearly the defendant had been offered alternative accommodation but had refused anything other than the property they were illegally occupying, which is why the litigation was actioned. so in this instance it would appear that it was NOT the housing provider who was at fault. That must really upset you!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 04/08/2010 5:44 pm
Harry Lime and ONly One,
i think you are purposely starting an arugment here. My previousp posting hinged on the number of rooms, and it is quite clear where I stand and if the rooms were no more than 2 thant the Housing provider has been wasting resources.
As for the defendant being offered alternative accomodation, it looks like they were not acceptable offers.
What kind of alternative offers were these? Studio flats?
Properties without decent standard or any sound insulations? Properties on the other side of the county?
Properties in high crime and antisocial areas?
How can you two blame this tenant for wanting to remain in her home she has lived for so long with her parents?
What's happening now, just to show they are in line with governement pressure for so called savings, Housing Providers are likely to penalize yet again good innocent tenants like this one, instead of evicting drug dealers.
Instead of producing saving they waste money in court cases instead of building new homes.
It's a great all round achievement you 2 are are only too happy to glorify in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Spellbinder | 05/08/2010 5:48 pm
The number of rooms is irrelevant - there was no right to occupy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Deonne Connelly | 09/08/2010 4:17 pm
Sorry I fail to see why the number of rooms are relevant to this case at all. The daughter had no legal rights to the property case closed. The only shocker for me is why it had to make it as far as the Court of Appeal!? If housing providers allow unauthorised occupiers to remain in properties we open the floodgates to all who wish to circument waiting lists and occupy properties they are not legally entitiled to.
Good work Sollihull Council!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment