23 April 2019

Unjust enrichment?

Unjust enrichment?  image

Islington Council is bringing proceedings against a resident to whom it sold a two-bedroom flat under its Right to Buy scheme in 2013 for £340,000.

The Right to Buy is governed by Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (‘the 1985 Act’), and gives eligible tenants the right to buy the freehold or long leasehold interest in their homes. In this instance the resident, Mr Zomparelli, had rented his flat for 13 years before buying it, and his long tenancy qualified him for a discount of £102,700.

The purchase price of the property under the Right to Buy is its open market value subject to certain assumptions and disregarding certain improvements carried out by the tenant, minus the discount to which the resident is entitled. The council, when valuing Mr Zomparelli’s flat, relied on a desktop valuation which did not show that the flat was a two-bedroom property, although Mr Zomparelli has said that the second bedroom was shown on his lease. Moreover, the second bedroom is a ‘box-room’ reportedly measuring only six square metres.

The council contends that the true value of the property should have been £700,000 and it is now asking Mr Zomparelli to pay the difference or face eviction.

Undoing a property sale is not straightforward and can only be done in exceptional circumstances, for example where a false misrepresentation has been made. In this case, it appears that the council will argue that it acted ‘ultra vires’ or beyond its legal power or authority.

The council asserts that it has to bring proceedings against Mr Zomparelli as the purchase price should have been based on the flat’s open market value, and therefore it acted outside of its jurisdiction when selling it to Mr Zomparelli without taking the second bedroom into account. The council argues that its decision to sell the flat in 2013 at the lower price is void and that Mr Zomparelli has been ‘unjustly enriched’ as a consequence.

If a local authority admits the right to buy, it must state the property’s purchase price and the terms to be included in the conveyance in a section 125 notice under the 1985 Act. Section 177 of the 1985 Act allows a section 125 notice to be amended, withdrawn or reserved in the event of an error or omission. In the case of Nessa v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWCA Civ 559 the council served four section 125 notices, arguing that it could not sell the flat at the lower purchase prices given in two of the notices as the market values given were lower than they should have been, rendering the notices ultra vires and void.

The Court of Appeal held that a power to amend could be implied to correct clerical mistakes made in a section 125 notice, but it remains unclear whether there must be a fundamental error in the notice for this power to be implied. The judgment also suggests that it may be possible for a purchase price to be amended unilaterally, and housing authorities may be comforted by the confirmation that a mistake of this nature will not cause them to be forced to sell properties at an undervalue.

As section 177’s provisions only apply where the tenant has not exercised the right to buy before the parties become aware of the mistake the judgment in the Nessa case may not assist Islington Council, but the judgement explicitly leaves open the question of whether there is any and if so what limit upon the power of a landlord to vary the price stated in its section 125 notice where the tenant has not abandoned the purchase originally proposed.

If Islington Council’s case reaches court it will be interesting to see whether it expands upon the Nessa judgment. In the meantime, it is clear that housing authorities should take care when relying upon valuations that will feed into section 125 notices.

Amy Rogers, senior associate in the property disputes team at Cripps incorporating Pemberton Greenish

In competition with the PWLB image

In competition with the PWLB

Christian Wall considers what alternative funding channels are available to local authorities beyond the Public Works Loan Board.
Highways jobs

Head of Audit and Governance

Tamworth Borough Council
Up to £49k + £5000 shared service allowance
Looking for people who are excellent communicators, are adventurous and who are inspired by our values... Tamworth, Staffordshire
Recuriter: Tamworth Borough Council

Divisional Manager – Revenues, Benefits & Customer services

Chichester District Council
£51,354 to £55,167
We are looking for an exceptional candidate to lead the Revenues, Benefits & Customer Services division. Chichester, West Sussex
Recuriter: Chichester District Council

Senior Team Leader

Redbridge London Borough Council
£35,992 to £38,994 per annum inclusive
Looking for individuals with initiative, evidence of experience in managing a street cleansing service and motivating... Redbridge, London (Greater)
Recuriter: Redbridge London Borough Council

Residential Keyworker

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and London Borough of Wandsworth
£19,156 per annum
This is an exciting time to join the school. In our recent OFSTED of the residential department. London (Greater)
Recuriter: London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and London Borough of Wandsworth

Commissioning Manager

Camden London Borough Council
£40,829 - £47,360 per annum
Looking for an ambitious person who can communicate well and understands how to analyse and translate qualitative and... Camden, London (Greater)
Recuriter: Camden London Borough Council

Local Government News

Latest issue - Local Goverrnemnt News

The March issue of Local Government News explores alternative funding channels that are available to councils beyond the Public Works Loan Board, what hurdles merging councils face in coming together, and how local government is handling GDPR.

This issue also has a special highways and street lighting section exploring how councils can use lighting to embark on their smart city journey and using IoT technology to weather the storm.

Register for your free magazine