The Court of Appeal has clarified that the definition of "stepchild" for succession purposes in the policy of a local authority, requires marriage or a civil partnership, rejecting a broader interpretation.
Background
In Haneen Abdelrahman v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington [2025] EWCA Civ 1038 the Court considered a claim of succession to a secure tenancy. Islington Borough Council ("the Council") granted Mr Seales a secure tenancy in 2015. Mr Seales was in a relationship with Ms Patel from 2011. Ms Patel had her own residence, and they did not live together. Ms Patel's daughter, Ms Abdelrahman, considered Mr Seales a "father figure" and moved into his property in 2018, when she was around 20 years old. Ms Abdelrahman remained in Mr Seales property until his death in 2021, latterly as his carer.
Ms Abdelrahman applied to succeed the tenancy on the basis that she was Mr Seales' "stepdaughter". The Council refused her application because Mr Seales and Ms Patel were not married or civil partners and this did not meet their policy definition for a "stepchild" for the purpose of succession.
The Council issued possession proceedings.
Section 86A of the Housing Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act") provides that for secure tenancies in England granted after 1 April 2012, a person can succeed a tenancy if:
- The person was the tenant's spouse or civil partner and occupied the dwelling house as their only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death; or
- There is an express term of the tenancy that allows for a person other than the spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed the tenancy and that person occupied the dwelling house as their only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death.
The Council's policy provided that the right to succeed applied to the tenant's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or half sibling, if they had resided with the tenant for a continued period of 12 months prior to the tenant's death. Stepchildren were included in this definition.
Ms Abdelrahman referred to the definition of “stepchild” in the Oxford English Dictionary (updated 2023), which stated:
“A person who is related to another as a result of a subsequent marriage or relationship of a parent, rather than through blood; a stepchild, step-parent, step-sibling etc.”
Ms Abdelrahman argued that a stepchild was not restricted to a child of a spouse.
At first instance, the judge granted an Order for Possession. Ms Abdelrahman appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Appeal
Lord Justice Lewison considered the dictionary definition provided by Ms Abdelrahman an outlier and identified other dictionary definitions for 'stepchild' which specifically required marriage. Moreover, he felt it was important that the Council's policy be capable of implementation by a tenancy officer with the minimum of investigation. He agreed with the first instance judge that: "The aim is to provide a narrow group of relatives who are easily and objectively ascertained.” If a broader definition was accepted this would necessitate costly and time-consuming investigations.
Ms Abdelrahman also claimed that the Council's policy amounted to unlawful discrimination and interfered with her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") pursuant to Article 8 (the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence) and Article 14 (that rights and freedoms in the ECHR are protected and applied without discrimination). This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal, that held that the Council's actions were proportionate in achieving a legitimate aim, noting the need to allocate, as fairly as possible, the scarce stock of social housing.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed Ms Abdelrahman's appeal.
This decision highlights the importance of maintaining objective criteria in succession policies, particularly given the pressures on tenancy officers to make decisions quickly and cost-effectively.
