Council making licensee agreement with tenant – Council serving notice to quit on tenant – Tenant claiming secured tenancy under Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 – Whether secured tenancy – Whether premises let as separate dwelling – Whether premises let on terms granting exclusive possession – County court dismissing claim for possession – Court of Appeal allowing appeal
In 1989 the defendant council, an education authority, introduced a staff accommodation scheme whereby teachers were offered accommodation in flats owned by the council on a share and furnished basis. The plaintiff successfully applied for a position as a science teacher and entered into a contract of employment with Westminster City School. The school was voluntary aided and, accordingly, the plaintiff’s employer was the governing body of the school. He was shown round flat 1, Canal Buildings, Gatliff Road, London SW1, at the same time as another teacher, M. The flat consisted of three bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, bathroom and separate WC. The plaintiff signed a licence agreement, which was a standard form document, and he was given the keys to the flat and to his own room, which was known as room 3. M also agreed to occupy the flat on the same terms as the plaintiff and she was allocated room 1. Room 2 remained unoccupied.
On April 13 the plaintiff was summarily dismissed and his appeal to the governors was dismissed. The council gave notice to quit on July 23 1992 which expired on August 28 1992. In any event, on August 16 1992 the licence agreement expired by effluxion of time. The plaintiff issued proceedings against the council for racial discrimination. The council sought possession andmesne profits from the plaintiff. The county court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and the council’s claim for possession. The judge held that the plaintiff occupied the premises as a secure tenant under Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 and, accordingly, he had not been served the requisite notice under section 83 of the 1985 Act. The council appealed contending that the premises had not been “let as a separate dwelling” within section 79(1) of the Act and that, in any event, the terms on which occupation was granted did not confer exclusive possession and therefore the plaintiff was not a secure tenant under the Act.
Held The council’s appeal was allowed.
1. The flat was capable of satisfying the requirement for a secure tenancy that there was a separate dwelling, because there was a separate sitting room with facilities for cooking, and a bathroom and separate WC. However, room 3 was not capable of satisfying that requirement on its own.
2. It was clear that the plaintiff only had exclusive possession of room 3 and that the remainder of the flat was on a shared basis. Therefore, he did not have an exclusive occupation of the flat as a separate dwelling and, accordingly, the terms on which the plaintiff occupied the premises were not under a secure tenancy: Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288, followed.
The plaintiff appeared in person; Simon Berry QC and Rupert Butler (instructed by Judge & Priestley, of Bromley) appeared for Westminster City Council.
