A consent order provided for a substantial payment to the tenant, who was claiming damages for failure to maintain the premises in good repair. The landlord now sought possession.
Held: There was no implied admission that the landlord was entitled to possession under the section.
Sir John Donaldson MR: ‘The question which then arises is whether the learned county court judge could have been satisfied that the requirements of section 98(1) were met. There was no express admission to this effect. The appellants, however, submit that such an admission was implicit in the consent to judgment. Mr Bartlett, on their behalf, submits that this consent is explicable only on the basis that Mr Blackburne recognised that (a) he was unable to claim the protection of the 1977 Act because he had never been or had ceased to be a statutory tenant, or (b) although he was a statutory tenant, he fell within case 1 of Schedule 15 and it was reasonable to make an order for possession. I disagree. There is a third possibility, namely (c) Mr B, although a statutory tenant whose arrears in rent, if any, were distinguished by his counterclaim, nevertheless thought the sum offered by the landlords was so attractive that he should surrender his rights or at least thought that any doubt which he had upon the score should be resolved by a compromise involving his acceptance of a large lump sum. Inference (c) would not have entitled the learned judge to make the order.’
Sir John Donaldson MR, Staughton LJ
[1985] 2 EGLR 157
Rent Act 1987 98(1)
England and Wales
Housing
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.246047