By Catherine Collins
The Court of Appeal has recently given us a further reminder that the label given to an agreement between a ‘licensor’ and a ‘licensee’ will not alter the legal implications of the agreement which has been reached. This is even if the written express intentions of the parties (both of whom were legally represented) were such as to exclude the statutory consequences of such an agreement. (Mansfield District Council –v- Langridge [2008] EWCA Civ 264)
The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. Mr. Langridge had evidently been causing a nuisance to his landlord and neighbours whilst resident at a property which he occupied as a secure tenant. Such was the level of his anti-social behaviour that the local authority decided to issue possession proceedings against him. A few days after proceedings were issued Mr. Langridge was attacked and was admitted to hospital where he remained for a number of months. Whilst in hospital Mr Langridge’s keys were handed to the local authority but not in terms of surrendering his tenancy.
Once discharged from hospital the local authority declined to return the keys to Mr. Langridge believing that he would cause too many problems in the neighbourhood if he were to return. Not surprisingly Mr. Langridge issued injunction proceedings against the local authority and as a compromise they offered him alternative accommodation during the currency of the possession proceedings. The offer was subject to Mr. Langridge signing a detailed ‘licence agreement’ which provided that the agreement would expire on the anticipated last day of the trial of the possession proceedings or upon notice.
Mr. Langridge was unsuccessful in defending the possession proceedings and an immediate order for possession was made. When the local authority then tried to obtain possession of the substitute accommodation which was the subject of the licence agreement Mr. Langridge asserted that he had become a secure tenant by virtue of the provisions of the Housing Act 1988.
The Court of Appeal held that the licence agreement had become a secure tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985 as the agreement between the local authority and Mr. Langridge satisfied both the ‘landlord’ condition and the ‘tenant’ condition and this was not altered by virtue of the overt express intentions of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement.
The case is of some importance in reminding those whose functions include the letting of property that if they grant exclusive possession of property to an individual under a ‘licence’ that they run the risk of giving much greater security than they initially considered. Other potential pitfalls could include the granting of licences to occupy property whilst dealing with an issue of ‘succession’ or after one joint tenant has served a notice to quit. If in those circumstances, the licence granted does not fall within any of the exclusions contained within the Housing Act then the likelihood is that a fresh secure tenancy will have arisen.
