What is the legal position if one of two joint tenants gives notice to a landlord quitting a periodic joint tenancy? Does the other joint tenant, still living in the property, have a right to remain?
The House of Lords confirmed the legal position in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] AC 478. If a periodic tenancy is vested in joint tenants, a valid notice to quit given by one joint tenant terminates the tenancy. This is because a periodic tenancy is, in essence, a series of tenancies. Consequently, any one of two or more joint tenants can refuse to renew at the end of each and every period.
The decision was not revolutionary; legal authorities dating back to Doe d Aslin v Summersett (1830) 1 B & Ad135, 140 indicated that this was the case. However, the decision does mean that any one of a number of joint periodic tenants can bring their tenancy to an end against the wishes, and even without the knowledge, of his or her co-tenant(s) by serving a notice to quit on the landlord. This can cause severe hardship where a relationship breaks down. Any one of the tenants can terminate the tenancy, leaving the landlord free to resume possession of the premises. To make matters worse, once given, the notice cannot be withdrawn.
In Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] UKSC 63, the tenant was appealing against a possession order obtained by the council. The tenant claimed that he was entitled to respect for his home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which provides that everyone is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and should not be deprived of them except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law.
The Supreme Court judgment was short and pithy. The tenant had been deprived of his property in circumstances and in a manner that was envisaged by the parties. The parties’ agreement provided that either joint tenant could terminate the tenancy by notice and that the council would then decide whether to allow the other to remain in the property or to offer him/her more suitable accommodation.
Consequently, the tenant’s Article 1 claim was very hard to sustain. The loss of his property right was the result of the bargain that he himself had made and, were the court to decide the case differently, the joint tenant who had served the notice would be forced to remain a tenant against her wishes. Alternatively, the landlord would be left with one covenant, instead of two, and would be landed with a single occupier in a family home.
Social housing is a scarce resource. Mrs Sims had served a notice to quit voluntarily, knowing what the effect would be. The council had not induced her to do so and it was entitled to re-allocate the property to someone else. It had given the remaining joint tenant ample opportunity to present his case and had carefully considered – and reviewed – the position. Consequently, it had done all that was necessary to respect the tenant’s Article 8 rights and it would not be disproportionate to evict him.
Allyson Colby is a planning law consultant
