Social housing is a scarce resource and tenants who pay preferential rents are not, without their landlords’ specific consent, permitted to sublet their homes with a view to gain. As a Court of Appeal ruling showed, any dishonest failure to abide by that embargo is likely to have the severest consequences.
The case concerned the secure tenant of a one-bedroom, local authority-owned flat. His tenancy agreement was governed by, amongst other statutes, the Housing Act 1985. By Section 93 of the Act, his tenancy was subject to a term that forbade him from subletting or giving up possession of part of the flat without first obtaining the council’s consent in writing.
Following a trial, he was convicted of two counts of fraud. The jury found that he had dishonestly failed to disclose to the council that he had sublet part of the premises. He had also dishonestly failed to inform the council that his wife was living with him in the flat for a period of about three years. That would have meant that he was no longer eligible for the single person discount from Council Tax.
A civil servant of previous good character, he received an 18-month suspended term of imprisonment and was ordered to carry out 30 days of rehabilitation activity. He was subsequently required to pay a confiscation order totalling almost £90,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including £17,500 in compensation to the council. He also faced substantial legal costs bills.
The Court noted that, as a result of the convictions, the man had lost his tenancy, his job and all of his savings. His family relationships had suffered and he had endured serious mental health difficulties. In refusing to grant him permission to appeal against the sentence, confiscation and costs orders, however, the Court noted that the trial judge had full regard to those consequences.
His appeal against the convictions, which was largely based on an assertion that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury as to the legal differences between a lodger and a subtenant, was also dismissed. Even if the man had referred to those whom he permitted to live in the flat as lodgers or paying guests, the jury was entitled to find that they enjoyed exclusive possession and were, in law, subtenants.