In this case the Court of Appeal ruled that the long-term partner of a deceased council tenant was not qualified to succeed the tenancy where the relationship was briefly interrupted.
Ms Turley was the long-term partner of Mr Doyle. In 1995 they moved into a four-bedroom house together with their four children where Mr Doyle was the sole tenant. In 2010 there was a temporary breakdown in the relationship and in December Mr Doyle lived elsewhere – without giving up the tenancy. He moved back in January 2012, and following a period of serious illness, Mr Doyle died in March that year.
In cases concerning secure tenancies granted prior to April 2012 in England, where those two people have not entered into a legal marriage or civil partnership but reside together, then the person who is not the tenant must meet an additional requirement. Under s87 Housing Act 1985, Ms Turley was not authorised to succeed to Mr Doyle’s tenancy as his spouse as they were not married.
The issue for Ms Turley was that although they had lived together, they had not resided together ‘throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant’s death’. If Ms Turley and Mr Doyle had been married, the twelve month requirement would not have applied because it applies only to members of the tenant’s family as per s113 Housing Act 1985.
Ms Turley sought a judicial review arguing the legislation was discriminatory and therefore incompatible with her rights under Article 8 ECHR paired with Article 14. Knowles J dismissed the application, suggesting the distinction was justified.
Ms Turley then issued an appeal in the Court of Appeal. Underhill LJ commented “I am sorry for the appellant because the comparatively brief interruption in her relationship with Mr Doyle moved out after a long period of living together has had the consequence of depriving her of the right to succeed the tenancy of the house which has been her home for many years.”
“But bright-line rules will sometimes have hard effects, and they are not for that reason unlawful. The council cannot be blamed for insisting on the rules, in circumstances where there is an acute shortage of social housing, particularly no doubt of flats of the size occupied by the appellant.”
The Court of Appeal accepted that there is a legitimate aim behind the imposition of the 12-month condition. The requirement is inherently satisfied in the case of spouses who have entered into a legal marriage or civil partnership: by doing so they have formally committed themselves to a relationship characterised by “permanence and constancy”. As part of the balance of interests it was argued that it is legitimate to seek to limit rights of succession to family members whose relationship is of a permanent character.