Agency and knowledge come to the fore in local authority possession case

The London Borough of Haringey has won in the Court of Appeal when it appealed against a High Court decision refusing a possession order.

The High Court found that the husband and tenant in the case, Mr Ahmed, was an agent for his wife in terms of the secure tenancy agreement so, when Mr Ahmed signed a second tenancy agreement, she was still occupying the first property as a secure tenant.

In the case of London Borough of Haringey v Ahmed & Anor, the Council contended in the Court of Appeal that the judge was wrong, that there was no subsisting tenancy and that his wife was not a tenant, secure or otherwise, under any agreement relating to the property.

In the Court of Appeal, it was stated that, in reaching his conclusion that there was an agency, the judge relied upon his finding that there was a “course of conduct” comprising: (i) Mr Ahmed securing a series of rented accommodation for the family; (ii) his wife accepting that he could act for her; and (iii) her trusting him. While Mr Ahmed did secure accommodation for the family, the Court of Appeal said there was no finding that he did so in his and his wife’s name, nor that he discussed the tenancy terms with her, nor that she had any awareness of such terms. He never informed her of any of the accommodation decisions and she had no involvement in them. There was no finding that his wife accepted that Mr Ahmed could act for her in entering into tenancy agreements on her behalf. She had no involvement in those decisions and was not informed about them. His wife may have trusted Mr Ahmed to secure accommodation for herself and their family, but this did not reveal anything about the legal capacity in which he was so doing. The Court of Appeal therefore found that the "course of conduct" relied upon by the judge did not amount to an agency.

In evidence and illustrating how little knowledge she had, the wife stated that: (i) she had had no involvement in finding accommodation for the family; (ii) she was unaware that Mr Ahmed had applied to the Council as homeless; (iii) she did not know that the Council had offered them a tenancy of the property; (iv) she did not know about the appointment to sign the first agreement; and (v) she did not know about the appointment to sign the second agreement.

The Court of Appeal also found that when Mr Ahmed signed the second tenancy agreement he, in fact, terminated the first agreement. Unfortunately, the first agreement named his wife, but she had not signed it. Therefore, she could not rely on the first agreement and could not continue to live in the property.