Housing Act 1988 — Unlawful eviction — Change of locks — Withholding of key — Tenant deciding not to resume possession — Whether unlawful eviction — Whether award of £31,000 damages reasonably reached on a proper direction as to the law — Appeal by landlord dismissed
The first defendant held from Lambeth London Borough Council a monthly tenancy of business premises at 116 Landor Road, Stockwell, London SW9, at a rent on an annual basis of £4,500; the second defendant, Mr Patel, was his agent. The first defendant granted the plaintiff a residential tenancy of a room on the first floor. On August 3 1989 the locks to the premises were changed and on August 7 the plaintiff obtained a mandatory injunction ordering the first defendant to reinstate the plaintiff and to provide a key. When the plaintiff returned to the premises on August 9 she found the front-door lock broken and some of her belongings stolen; she then decided not to resume possession.
In the court below valuation evidence was given only on behalf of the plaintiff; this assumed that there was a profit rental for the whole building of £7,500 (£12,000 rental value of the whole building less the reserved rent of £4,500 for the business part) and that the difference in tenanted and untenanted freehold values was £34,500 and on the basis of the first defendant’s monthly tenancy the difference for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988, section 28, was £31,000. His Honour Judge Simpson held (November 24 1989) that the defendants were liable under section 27(3) of the 1988 Act for damages by reason of unlawfully depriving the plaintiff of occupation of the premises and awarded £31,000; the defendants had appeared in person and did not adduce expert evidence.
The first defendant appealed contending that: (1) by reason of the injunction the plaintiff became reinstated, or was offered reinstatement, and by section 27(6)(b) and (7)(b) liability was excluded or the damages should be reduced; and (2) having regard to the monthly tenancy held by the first defendant, the lack of security of tenure in respect of the parts not occupied by him for business purposes, and the absolute covenant against assignment, it was inconceivable that the valuer, who had given evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, or the court, properly directed as to the law, could have arrived at a valuation only £3,500 less than the difference between the tenanted and untenanted freehold values.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Providing the plaintiff with a key to the wrecked room was not reinstatement satisfying section 27(6)(b) of the 1988 Act. A tenant has a choice as to whether to accept reinstatement, but on the facts the plaintiff had not been offered that choice. The defendants were therefore liable to pay damages.
2. The award of damages was high but not so high that it should be disturbed. There was no evidence that the existence or otherwise of the particular monthly tenancy held by the first defendant would have made any difference to the arithmetical calculation which resulted in a difference in value of £31,000.
Robert Carnwath QC and William Geldart (instructed by John Gittens & Co) appeared for the appellants; and David Neuberger QC and Hugh Jackson (instructed by Anthony Gold Lerman & Muirhead) appeared for the respondent.