Joint tenancy between husband and wife — Wife serving notice to quit — Appellant husband claiming homelessness — Whether notice effective to terminate tenancy — Whether licence to occupy — Appeal allowed
The appellant and his wife occupied a property under a secure joint tenancy that had been granted by the respondent council. The wife obtained an occupation order under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 that excluded the appellant from the property for six months. He submitted a homelessness application to the respondents and was placed in temporary accommodation. The appellant did not return to the property after the occupation order was discharged. His wife subsequently served notice to quit purporting to terminate the secure tenancy.
The respondents conducted a review and concluded that the appellant was intentionally homeless because suitable premises were available to him in the shape of the property, which they were content for him to occupy. The review officer found that the appellant could occupy the property under the secure tenancy or, more probably, under a licence from the respondents. She considered it arguable whether the notice to quit had been effective to terminate the tenancy, on the basis that the parties’ intentions were a guide on that matter and the respondents were clearly of the view that the appellant was entitled to occupy the premises. That decision was upheld on appeal. The judge held that, regardless of whether the appellant held a tenancy or a licence, the property offered a home that he was entitled to occupy, so that it was unnecessary to determine the precise nature of his interest. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The notice to quit served by the appellant’s wife was effective whether or not he had concurred with it being given. One of two joint tenants could unilaterally terminate the tenancy irrespective of the concurrence or knowledge of the other: Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43; [2003] 3 EGLR 109 applied. Moreover, the intentions of the respondents, as landlords, were irrelevant to that matter. It was the intent of the notice-giver that mattered. The appellant’s wife had intended to terminate the joint tenancy and had in law achieved that. Whether or not the respondents had wanted that to happen was irrelevant.
The judge had erred in not investigating whether there was a licence and upon what terms. It was not sufficient that the respondents wished to make the property available; it was necessary to examine the precise terms upon which the property was alleged to be available for occupation at the date of the review. Without determining the nature and terms of any interest held by the appellant, it was impossible to decide whether he was homeless.
David Watkinson (instructed by Cameron Jones) appeared for the appellant; Martin Russell (instructed by the legal department of Brent London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sally Dobson, barrister
