The court considered the right of a protected tenant to become a statutory tenant on the termination of his protected tenancy under section 2(1)(a) of the 1977 Act, requiring him to occupy the dwelling house ‘as his residence’. The tenant occupied the flat as a temporary expedient for part of the time when the house, which his wife had purchased and in which they and their children lived, was let to others during the winter.
Held: His residence in the flat did not have the quality needed to attract the protections of the Rent Acts.
Cumming-Bruce LJ asked whether the second residence was used as a home rather than a place of convenient resort.home. Cumming-Bruce LJ set out two principles that were relevant in that context: ‘First, the court enquires what is the extent and what are the characteristics of the user of the residence? When that is ascertained the court also enquires: Is the nature of the residence during the period that it persisted the kind of residence that is within the contemplation of the Rent Act? Is this the kind of residence that Parliament intended should clothe the tenant with the right to claim statutory protection?’
May LJ took a similar approach, asking whether there was occupation as a home.
Cumming-Bruce LJ, Eveleigh LJ, May LJ
(1982) 5 HLR 48
England and Wales
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.554544