Court of Appeal rejects foster son's succession bid

The Court of Appeal has ruled against a man who sought to take over the council house of his deceased foster mother.

In Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors [2010] EWCA 922, Steven Wall argued that he was entitled to occupy the home as his foster’s mother’s successor under sections 87 and 113 of the Housing Act 1985. June Wall had died in June 2003.

Mr Wall asked the court to grant him possession of the property as against a Mr and Mrs Ingham, who were granted a secure tenancy by the council in April 2005.

Mr Wall and his foster mother had a very close and loving relationship ever since he was placed with her in 1967. This relationship endured until her death after a long illness, during which time Mr Wall was the primary carer. Crucially, however, he was never formally adopted.

On 6 October 1986 Mrs Wall was granted a secure tenancy of the property on the express basis that the two-bedroomed home would be for herself and her “son”, Steven.

Mr Wall subsequently spent periods away from the home while obtaining degrees in law and insurance. He also lived away from home for six months of his training contract with law firm DLA.

When his foster mother became ill with cancer, Mr Wall devoted himself to caring for her. He had been back at home for a week short of 12 months when she died.

In October 2003 he was served with a notice to quit. Three months later Sheffield City Council issued a claim for possession of the property on the ground that there was no person qualified to succeed to the tenancy and that a valid notice had been served.

A number of hearings then took place but no settlement proved possible.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Housing Act included step child and illegitimate child within the meaning of “child” for the purposes of s.113, but did not include foster child. It therefore rejected Mr Wall’s appeal.

Giving the lead judgement, Lord Justice Ward said: “We have great sympathy for Mr Wall who was to all intents and purposes Mrs Wall’s son but he was short of that vital piece of paper – the adoption order – and without it he falls outside the definition in section 113 unless that has to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with his Convention rights.”

However, the judge added that the Court of Appeal felt that the legislation was compatible with Mr Wall’s rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.