Plaintiff tenant travelling overseas – Landlord purporting to serve notice to quit and moving new tenants into premises – Plaintiff returning to premises and finding new tenant in occupation – New tenant moving out of bedroom into sitting room – Whether tenant entitled to damages – Housing Act 1988 section 27(2)(b) – Damages awarded – Appeal dismissed
The defendant landlord was the owner of a two-bedroom flat in Cricklewood, which he let on an assured tenancy to the plaintiff tenant, determinable on giving one month’s notice. It was a term of the tenancy that the plaintiff was to have exclusive use of the second bedroom and was to share the sitting room, kitchen and bathroom. At the time the tenancy was created a licensee was in occupation of the first bedroom, although it was understood that the licensee would be leaving and that another tenant would be found to share the flat. The plaintiff moved into the property on 10 November 1994.
Subsequently, the plaintiff went on holiday to the Far East and continued to pay his rent by standing order. Meanwhile, the licensee moved out of the flat, and, in January 1995, the landlord purported to serve a notice to quit on the plaintiff that failed to give one month’s notice. The landlord subsequently let the whole flat to two new tenants who occupied both bedrooms. They moved into the property in February 1995. On 19 February 1995 the plaintiff returned to find his room occupied by one of the new tenants and his belongings moved. The new tenant agreed to sleep in the sitting room. The plaintiff, being an assured tenant, had a right to remain in the property, and chose to do so. However, he left the property on 2 May and issued proceedings claiming damages. The judge awarded the plaintiff damages, under section 27 of the Housing Act 1988, in the sum of £6,750 plus interest, and, at common law, for the landlord’s breach of covenant affording the right of enjoyment of the premises, in the sum of £2,050. The landlord appealed contending that the judge had erred in finding that the elements of section 27(2)(b) had been established.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Although the plaintiff could not have complained if the new tenants had both moved into the first bedroom, that had not been the case. The landlord had purported to let the entire property, with exclusive possession of all the rooms, at a time when the plaintiff had had a valid right to exclusive possession of the second bedroom. Although the new tenant moved out of the bedroom at the plaintiff’s request, the plaintiff’s use of the sitting room had thereafter been compromised. Accordingly, the judge had been correct in finding that the landlord had acted in a way that was likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the plaintiff.
2. Even if the landlord had thought that the notice to quit was valid, it did not mean that other acts would not cause the plaintiff to vacate. Moving two tenants into the flat could only have been done to secure the plaintiff’s voluntary removal. Therefore, there was substantial evidence that the landlord had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was likely to induce the plaintiff to give up occupation.
3. Although there was some delay in the tenant moving out, that did not mean that there was no evidence that the relevant acts of the landlord had precipitated the plaintiff’s action of giving up occupation of the property. The three people had lived in difficult conditions, until the plaintiff could stand it no longer and had moved out. Accordingly, the judge had been right to find that the necessary causation had been established.
Christopher Coney (instructed by Gentle Jayes) appeared for the plaintiff; Mathew Hardwick (instructed by Sinclairs, of Hendon) appeared for the defendant.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
