Charity – Almshouses – Defendant appointed to occupy almshouse – Defendant in breach of conditions – Defendant refusing to vacate almshouse – Trustees seeking possession – Whether defendant an assured tenant under Housing Act 1988
The plaintiffs were the trustees of a registered charity, Peterborough Almshouses and Relief in Need Charity, which owned dwellings in Peterborough retained as almshouses. The charity was regulated by a scheme, which included provisions, inter alia, for the qualifications, selection and setting aside of appointments of almspeople. The defendant was an almsperson who was appointed at some date prior to August 19 1994 when she signed a document containing the conditions of occupancy of 6 Smith House, one of the charity’s almshouses. Clause 1.3 of the conditions provided that “Residents are licencees and pay a contribution towards the cost of providing accommodation . . . ; residents are not tenants and do not pay rent”. On February 20 1997 the trustees decided to set aside the appointment of the defendant in the exercise of their power to do so under clause 46, where an almsperson “persistently or without reasonable excuse either disregards the regulations . . . or disturbs the quiet occupation of the almshouses or otherwise behaves vexatiously or offensively”. The defendant was given written notice to vacate, but she refused to do so.
On April 7 1997 the plaintiffs began proceedings to recover possession of 6 Smith House. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and a preliminary issue was ordered as to whether the defendant’s occupancy was an assured tenancy under section 1 of the Housing Act 1988. The judge found that the plaintiffs had no power under the scheme to let the almshouses and that the defendant occupied 6 Smith House as a licensee. The defendant appealed contending that the judge had erred: (1) in addressing himself to the question as to whether the plaintiffs had the power to grant an assured tenancy under section 1 of the Housing Act 1988; or (2) in finding that the security of tenure enjoyed by a tenant of an assured tenancy under the 1988 Act was inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ powers of management.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The rights of an almsperson to occupy the property of the charity were personal and depended upon the continued eligibility of the person in question to benefit as an object of the charity. The trustees and the almsperson were not therefore setting up a right to occupy otherwise than as a beneficiary, and the rights of the almsperson were dependent upon his or her status as a beneficiary under the charity. The defendant had contended that she had been entitled, when appointed an almsperson and allowed to occupy the almshouse, to an exclusive right of possession for a term at a rent and had therefore become a tenant. However, on the facts of the case, although a person let into exclusive possession may prima facie be considered a tenant, the defendant was not a tenant because the circumstances negatived any intention to create a tenancy: see Errington v Errington & Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 per Denning LJ at p298 and Street v Mountford [1985] 1 EGLR 128 per Lord Templeman at p130. It was immaterial that the defendant had paid a weekly sum.
2. The trustees had an express power to let land expressly limited to land not required to be retained or occupied for the purpose of charity. The trustees therefore had no power to let the almshouses. The defendant’s occupancy did not fall within the provisions of the Housing Act 1985.
David Watkinson and Maggie Jones (instructed by the solicitor to Shelter) appeared for the appellant; Christopher McCall QC and Francesca Quint (instructed by Greenwoods, of Peterborough) appeared for the respondents.
