News

Woman fails in rent claim for house pending sale

News

Roger Pearson

15 June 2000

South East

Christina Peterat bought the one-bedroom terrace house at 35 Wyles Street for £19,000 in 1996. She came to an oral agreement with a former college friend, David Jennings, that he could live there until it was resold in return for contributing towards the costs of refurbishment and paying £300 per month for the first six months. However, the £300 was not paid and a dispute arose over how much Jennings had contributed towards the costs of the renovations.

In December 1998 Judge Russell-Vick, sitting at Medway County Court, ruled that whatever the exact amount, it had been sufficient to cover the first six months occupation, and he dismissed Mrs Peterats claim for rent. He found that, although there was nothing in writing, the parties had agreed that Jennings could remain in occupation at a market rent until the house was sold.

On appeal from that decision, the case turned on whether Mr Jennings held a licence or a tenancy of the house. Rachel Willmot, counsel for Mrs Peterat, argued in the Court of Appeal that Mr Jennings occupied the property under a statutory assured fixed-term tenancy and that, at the end of the six-month period, a statutory periodic tenancy arose automatically on the same terms.

But Mr Jennings, who conducted the case himself, argued that there was no tenancy because the terms of the occupation, a mixture of money and work of disputed value, were too vague to be seen as rent. He also contended that occupation pending marketing and sale was inconsistent with the existence of a tenancy.

Dismissing the appeal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse said there was no proper basis in law for dislodging the judges findings or his legal conclusion that there was no tenancy. The agreement was made at a time when the property was on the market, and refurbishment pending sale had already begun when the defendant moved in. In those circumstances, “it offended common sense” to claim that the parties had agreed a tenancy.

Peterat v Jennings Court of Appeal (Laws LJ and Sir Ronald Waterhouse) 15 June 2000

Nathan Tavares (instructed by Gough Clinton & Broom, of Welling) appeared for the appellant; the respondent appeared in person.

PLS News 15/6/00

A woman who bought a house in Gillingham, Kent, to refurbish and sell on has failed in her claim to be entitled to £8,100 rent from a friend she allowed to live there in return for a contribution to renovation costs. Christina Peterat bought the one-bedroom terrace house at 35 Wyles Street for £19,000 in 1996. She came to an oral agreement with a former college friend, David Jennings, that he could live there until it was resold in return for contributing towards the costs of refurbishment and paying £300 per month for the first six months. However, the £300 was not paid and a dispute arose over how much Jennings had contributed towards the costs of the renovations. In December 1998 Judge Russell-Vick, sitting at Medway County Court, ruled that whatever the exact amount, it had been sufficient to cover the first six months occupation, and he dismissed Mrs Peterats claim for rent. He found that, although there was nothing in writing, the parties had agreed that Jennings could remain in occupation at a market rent until the house was sold. On appeal from that decision, the case turned on whether Mr Jennings held a licence or a tenancy of the house. Rachel Willmot, counsel for Mrs Peterat, argued in the Court of Appeal that Mr Jennings occupied the property under a statutory assured fixed-term tenancy and that, at the end of the six-month period, a statutory periodic tenancy arose automatically on the same terms. But Mr Jennings, who conducted the case himself, argued that there was no tenancy because the terms of the occupation, a mixture of money and work of disputed value, were too vague to be seen as rent. He also contended that occupation pending marketing and sale was inconsistent with the existence of a tenancy. Dismissing the appeal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse said there was no proper basis in law for dislodging the judges findings or his legal conclusion that there was no tenancy. The agreement was made at a time when the property was on the market, and refurbishment pending sale had already begun when the defendant moved in. In those circumstances, “it offended common sense” to claim that the parties had agreed a tenancy. Peterat v Jennings Court of Appeal (Laws LJ and Sir Ronald Waterhouse) 15 June 2000 Nathan Tavares (instructed by Gough Clinton & Broom, of Welling) appeared for the appellant; the respondent appeared in person. PLS News 15/6/00