Stewart and others v Watts [2016] EWCA Civ 1247

Ashtead United Charity owned three properties which contained 14 residential flats.  Mrs Watts retned one of the flats and occupied it pursuant to a letter of appointment.  The letter stated that Mrs Watts was appointed as a beneficiary of the Charity and that a monthly rent was payable and made various references to 'the tenancy.'

The letter also set out regulations that applied to residents including that residents nor any relation of the resident would be a tenant of the charity or have any legal interest in the property.  In August 2014 the trustees of the charity served a notice to quit on Mrs Watts and possession proceedings were issued in May 2015.  The court was required to decided the basis on which Mrs Watts occupied the flat.  

The grant of exclusive possession did not confer a tenancy on a lodger, as neither party wished to create formal legal relations.

A trust was set up by the father of a girl, Marian, with a history of mental health problems, in order to provide for her. The trust purchased a residential property with the intention of providing a home for Marian. However, before Marian could occupy the property, she let an acquaintance, Miss Vesely, into it.

Miss Vesely moved her belongings into the flat and started living there without the knowledge or permission of the trustees.
When, in April 1996, the trustees discovered this arrangement, they initially made moves to evict Miss Vesely.  Marian subsequently moved into the flat, and when the two women became friendly, it was decided that Miss Vesely and Marian would continue to share the flat and that Miss Vesely would make a weekly contribution of £65 to the joint household expenses of the two women.  The payments were not intended to be rent, and were not denominated as rent.  No payments were made to the trustees.

This arrangement was later questioned when the trustees came to serve notice on Miss Vesely some ten years later.  Miss Vesely claimed that she

Tenants of the licensees were not tenants of the licensor.

In both of these cases, the respective local authorities issued licences over properties that they owned to housing associations, in order to provide temporary accommodation. The housing association then granted assured tenancies, mainly to homeless people. The local authority later withdrew the housing association's licence, but the tenants of the housing association claimed that this caused them to become tenants of the local authority.
The judge

A tenant of a licensee is not a tenant of the licensor.

The Borough Council granted a licence of a block of flats to a charitable Housing Trust, for the Trust to provide temporary accommodation for homeless people. The Trust then granted licences allowing individuals to occupy the flats. One of the occupants later argued that although the Trust had purported to grant licences, his agreement with the trust resulted in a tenancy as he had exclusive possession. It is the legal consequences of the agreement that is determinative, rather than the label the parties attach to it (as shown by Street v Mountford [1985]).

The County Court held

A licensee did not have a secure tenancy.

Teachers at a voluntary aided school were treated as within the council’s affordable housing scheme. The council granted a licence of a single room within a shared flat to a teacher at this school. When he was dismissed from his employment at the school by the governing body (his employer), the council served on him notice to leave the flat, within four weeks. The teacher claimed that rather than a licence he had a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985, and the County Court

A local authority with the power to manage a school did not have the power to grant tenancies.

Redbank Schools was the leasehold owner of property under a 999 year lease. It used the property as a training school for delinquent boys, and on the school campus were dwellings a intended to accommodate school staff and employees. The school had been used by Redbank as an approved school under a management committee, but from April 1973, the school became a controlled community home managed by Lancashire County Council pursuant to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. About a third of the 160 teachers employed by the council were accommodated on or near the the campus, in property belonging to Redbank.

It was later decided that the school should be run by the local Borough Council. After that date, the staff were employed by the county council school, and provided with accommodation. Each employee had exclusive occupation of their house or flat, occupied on a periodic basis, and each paid rent

Acceptance of rent from a person whom the owner of a house allowed to stay in it did not create a tenancy as the parties had not intended to create legal relations.

 Out of genuine kindness, a owner of a house allowed the daughter of a deceased tenant to remain in occupation of the property for six months following the tenant’s death. The owner expressly refused to add the daughter’s name to the rent book, despite accepting two weeks’ rent.  The daughter contended that the acceptance of rent meant that she had been granted a new tenancy.