A right of occupation given by an almshouse under a charitable trust was an occupation under a licence without right of possession, not an assured tenancy. The plaintiff’s conditions of occupancy stated: ‘Residents are licensees and pay a contribution towards the cost of providing accommodation at the Court: residents are not tenants and do not pay rent.’
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed and she did not have an assured tenancy. There had been no intention to create a tenancy: ‘A person who is selected as an almsperson becomes a beneficiary under the trusts of the charity and enjoys the privilege of occupation of rooms in the almshouses as a beneficiary. It is, in my judgment, wholly immaterial that, in this case, the appellant pays a weekly sum towards the cost of maintaining the almshouses and the essential services therein. ‘ and ‘the weekly contribution paid by the almsperson goes towards the discharge of costs falling on the trustees, thereby liberating income of the charity for other purposes, including the maintenance of a reserve fund and the improvement and extension of the almshouses. The weekly charge is not rent payable under a tenancy. Indeed, it is historically the case that, until comparatively recently, almspersons were not required to pay any weekly sum. The introduction of a weekly sum came with the introduction of housing benefit, to which almspersons would normally be entitled; payment of a weekly sum not exceeding the housing benefit would not result in any net loss to the almsperson and in effect the housing benefit would be available to the charity. ‘
Judges:
Nourse LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir John Vinelott
Citations:
Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 24-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 603, [1998] L and TR 50, [1998] 4 All ER 17, , [1998] 1 WLR 1093
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Allan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
Cited – Errington v Errington and Woods CA 19-Dec-1951
There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.80991