Licence — Termination — Whether agreement a licence within section 79(3) of the Housing Act 1985 — Whether agreement a tenancy — Whether tenancy a secure tenancy — Appeal by tenant allowed
In 1987 the respondent council allowed the appellant into occupation of room E, Cambridge Street Hostel, 13 Cambridge Street, London SW1, under an agreement called a “Licence to occupy”. In the Westminster County Court (October 16 1989) Mr Recorder Langan QC made an order for possession of the room against the appellant: he decided that the appellant did not have a secure tenancy and followed and applied Family Housing Association v Miab (1982) 5 HLR94. On appeal it was conceded that because of a mobility clause in his licence the appellant did not have a tenancy but did have a licence within the Housing Act 1985 by virtue of section 79(3) and therefore his licence had not been terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The appellant has a licence to occupy residential accommodation whether the licence is exclusive to the landlord or not. A licence to be within section 79(3) of the Act must, so far as possible, equate to a tenancy under section 79(1).
2. Room E was a single room inherently suitable only for single occupation. The mobility clause would not, until exercised, have any effect on the exclusive nature of the appellant’s occupation of the room. The appellant therefore had exclusive possession of his residential accommodation in room E and is entitled to security of tenure under Part IV of the Act. The sharing of a common-room was not a sharing of essential living accommodation which would have prevented occupation of the room as a separate dwelling.
Family Housing Association v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 779 followed.
Stephen Sedley QC (instructed by Christian Fisher & Co) appeared for the appellant; and Andrew Collins QC (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the respondents.
