Burrows v Brent London Borough Council [1996]

The House of Lords allowed an appeal against a decision that a tenant had been granted a new tenancy due to coming to an agreement with the landlord council following the granting of a possession order against a tenant. There was no new tenancy, so the possession order could be executed over two years after it was obtained.

In August 1984, Brent LBC granted a joint tenancy of a flat to a couple. This was a secure tenancy. The couple moved into the property with their six children. In January 1986, the husband left and the wife remained in the flat with the children but had difficulty paying the rent. In January 1992, the council obtained a final order for possession for non-payment of rent and an order for payment of the arrears of over £2, 400. The order meant that the joint tenancy would end in February 1992, but the wife was unable to satisfy the order for the arrears. However, before the expiry of the 14 day period given to her to repay the arrears, the wife entered into an agreement with the council that she could continue to live in the flat provided she paid a sum equivalent to rent and also paid a regular sum to reduce the arrears. The council then noted her liability to make weekly payments as though they were rent under this agreement, and increased the amounts due in accordance with their general rental policy. The wife did not comply with the agreement.

In May 1994, the council served on the wife a warrant for the enforcement of the possession order obtained in January 1992. After the first week of June 1992, the warrant was executed by a bailiff locking and boarding up the flat. The wife applied to the county court for a declaration that the agreement in January 1992 had created a new tenancy or licence by operation of law. She also applied for a mandatory injunction that the council should readmit her to the flat. The county court made the declaration and issued the injunction.
The council appealed against this decision, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

HELD: The House of Lords allowed the council’s appeal, holding that the final possession order was followed by agreement to forebear which did not restore the old tenancy.
The order for possession brought her tenancy to an end on 12 February 1992 and no later.
Therefore, after that her occupation could only be that of a trespasser who was liable to pay mesne profits unless and until the council executed the warrant for possession or granted her a new tenancy or a licence to stay.
The House held that an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional, does not create a new secure tenancy or licence. By making agreement in February 1992, the council did not grant a new tenancy or licence to the wife.

Citation: Burrows v Brent London Borough Council [1996] 1 WLR 1448