Seminar Exercise – Week 9 – Leases and leasehold.
Work in pairs on the following questions.
1. Tim, Tilly, Tom, and Trudy were great friends at college, but since leaving university
have had to make different arrangements for accommodation. One year on the
four amigos their experiences of living independently have been a little mixed.
Advise each of them whether what legal rights they have to stay in their
properties.
Tim has been allowed to live rent-free in his cousins’ flat in London while his cousin
travelled in Europe for a year. In return, he agreed to take care of the place and
keep it clean and tidy. It’s a lovely flat in central London and so he is none too
happy when he hears that his cousin is returning. He feels his cousin gave the
impression that the flat would be available for three years, and asks for advice as
to whether he has any legal rights.
- In social and domestic agreements between friends and family, it is presumed that
there is no intention to create legal relations and therefore a licence is created
rather than a lease.
- In Cobb v Lane [1952], a sister allowed her brother to occupy her house rent free for
13 years.
o It was held that there was no intention to create legal relations.
o The brother occupied the house as a mere licensee.
- In Booker v Palmer [1942], the owner of a cottage allowed an evacuee to stay in his
cottage rent free following a request from a friend. The evacuee’s home had been
bombed.
o It was held that there was no intention to create legal relations and thus the
evacuee was a mere licensee.
o Lord Greene MR: “To suggest there is an intention to create a relationship of
landlord and tenant appears to me to be quite impossible. There is one
golden rule which is of very general application, namely, that the law does
not impute intention to enter into legal relationships where the
circumstances and the conduct of the parties negative any intention of the
kind. It seems to me that this is a clear example of the application of that
rule.”
- First of all, since they are cousins, a family relationship is established. Therefore, it is
presumed that there is no intention to create legal relations, therefore a licence is
created rather than a lease.
- Secondly, Tim’s cousin has said that Tim will be allowed to live rent-free in his flat
while he is travelling in Europe for a year. Based on these facts, it does not seem that
a full three-year guarantee of the flat being available has been implied.
- A lodger is a licensee as oppose to a tenant as recognised in Street v Mountford. A
lodger is one who shares occupation of the premises with the owner. A lodger does
not have the right to exclude the owner from the premises. The owner may provide
services to the lodger such as meals and cleaning services.
o Tim would be considered a lodger in this case and is a licensee.
- The absence of rent in this case is indicative that no tenancy was intended.
, Tilly and her boyfriend Fred found a small, two roomed flat nearby. They signed
separate licence agreements to pay rent of £150 per week. Clause 3 of each licence
agreement states that they must vacate the property at 11.00am each day for one
hour while the landlord uses the bathroom. The landlord has never visited, and
they have never vacated the property. Unfortunately, they had a big row on
Saturday, and have decided to split up. Tilly wants to stay in the property on her
own. She asks for advice as to what her rights are.
- In Antoniades v Villiers [1988], an unmarried couple occupied an attic flat with one
bedroom with a double bed. The owner had insisted that they enter separate
agreements which were described as licences, and they were required to separately
pay half the rent. The agreements contained a clause reserving the owner the right
to occupy the flat or to nominate another to occupy it.
o There was a sofa bed in the living room so this may have been physically
possible, nevertheless the House of Lords considered the clause to be a sham
and the couple were held to be tenants in joint possession.
o Lord Templeman: “Parties to an agreement cannot contract out of the Rent
acts; if they were to do so the Acts would be a dead letter because in a state
of housing shortage a person seeking residential accommodation may agree
to anything to obtain shelter. The Rent Acts protect a tenant, but they do not
protect a licensee. Since parties to an agreement cannot contract out of the
Rent Acts, a document which expresses the intention, genuine or bogus, of
both parties or of one party to create a licence will nevertheless create a
tenancy if the rights and obligations enjoyed and imposed satisfy the legal
requirements of a tenancy. A person seeking residential accommodation may
concur in any expression of intention in order to obtain shelter. Since parties
to an agreement cannot contract out of the Rent Acts, a document expressed
in the language of a licence must nevertheless be examined and construed by
the court in order to decide whether the rights and obligations enjoyed and
imposed create a licence or a tenancy.”
- In Street v Mountford, Lord Templeman stated: “any express reservation to the
landlord of limited rights to enter and view the state of the premises and to repair
and maintain the premises only serves to emphasise the fact that the grantee is
entitled to exclusive possession and is a tenant.
o In the case of Tilly, clause 3 of each licence agreement states that they must
vacate the property at 11.00am each day for one hour while the landlord
uses the bathroom. This shows that the landlord had limited rights to enter
and view the state of the premises, as the landlord was only allowed to use
the bathroom in the property at 11.00am each day. This shows that Tilly and
her boyfriend Fred had exclusive possession of the flat and are tenants.
- Similar case: as decided in the case of Antoniades v Villiers, the couple were held to
be tenants in joint possession.
o As joint tenants:
You have equal rights to the whole property;
The property automatically goes to the other owner if you die;
You cannot pass on your ownership of the property in your will.
Work in pairs on the following questions.
1. Tim, Tilly, Tom, and Trudy were great friends at college, but since leaving university
have had to make different arrangements for accommodation. One year on the
four amigos their experiences of living independently have been a little mixed.
Advise each of them whether what legal rights they have to stay in their
properties.
Tim has been allowed to live rent-free in his cousins’ flat in London while his cousin
travelled in Europe for a year. In return, he agreed to take care of the place and
keep it clean and tidy. It’s a lovely flat in central London and so he is none too
happy when he hears that his cousin is returning. He feels his cousin gave the
impression that the flat would be available for three years, and asks for advice as
to whether he has any legal rights.
- In social and domestic agreements between friends and family, it is presumed that
there is no intention to create legal relations and therefore a licence is created
rather than a lease.
- In Cobb v Lane [1952], a sister allowed her brother to occupy her house rent free for
13 years.
o It was held that there was no intention to create legal relations.
o The brother occupied the house as a mere licensee.
- In Booker v Palmer [1942], the owner of a cottage allowed an evacuee to stay in his
cottage rent free following a request from a friend. The evacuee’s home had been
bombed.
o It was held that there was no intention to create legal relations and thus the
evacuee was a mere licensee.
o Lord Greene MR: “To suggest there is an intention to create a relationship of
landlord and tenant appears to me to be quite impossible. There is one
golden rule which is of very general application, namely, that the law does
not impute intention to enter into legal relationships where the
circumstances and the conduct of the parties negative any intention of the
kind. It seems to me that this is a clear example of the application of that
rule.”
- First of all, since they are cousins, a family relationship is established. Therefore, it is
presumed that there is no intention to create legal relations, therefore a licence is
created rather than a lease.
- Secondly, Tim’s cousin has said that Tim will be allowed to live rent-free in his flat
while he is travelling in Europe for a year. Based on these facts, it does not seem that
a full three-year guarantee of the flat being available has been implied.
- A lodger is a licensee as oppose to a tenant as recognised in Street v Mountford. A
lodger is one who shares occupation of the premises with the owner. A lodger does
not have the right to exclude the owner from the premises. The owner may provide
services to the lodger such as meals and cleaning services.
o Tim would be considered a lodger in this case and is a licensee.
- The absence of rent in this case is indicative that no tenancy was intended.
, Tilly and her boyfriend Fred found a small, two roomed flat nearby. They signed
separate licence agreements to pay rent of £150 per week. Clause 3 of each licence
agreement states that they must vacate the property at 11.00am each day for one
hour while the landlord uses the bathroom. The landlord has never visited, and
they have never vacated the property. Unfortunately, they had a big row on
Saturday, and have decided to split up. Tilly wants to stay in the property on her
own. She asks for advice as to what her rights are.
- In Antoniades v Villiers [1988], an unmarried couple occupied an attic flat with one
bedroom with a double bed. The owner had insisted that they enter separate
agreements which were described as licences, and they were required to separately
pay half the rent. The agreements contained a clause reserving the owner the right
to occupy the flat or to nominate another to occupy it.
o There was a sofa bed in the living room so this may have been physically
possible, nevertheless the House of Lords considered the clause to be a sham
and the couple were held to be tenants in joint possession.
o Lord Templeman: “Parties to an agreement cannot contract out of the Rent
acts; if they were to do so the Acts would be a dead letter because in a state
of housing shortage a person seeking residential accommodation may agree
to anything to obtain shelter. The Rent Acts protect a tenant, but they do not
protect a licensee. Since parties to an agreement cannot contract out of the
Rent Acts, a document which expresses the intention, genuine or bogus, of
both parties or of one party to create a licence will nevertheless create a
tenancy if the rights and obligations enjoyed and imposed satisfy the legal
requirements of a tenancy. A person seeking residential accommodation may
concur in any expression of intention in order to obtain shelter. Since parties
to an agreement cannot contract out of the Rent Acts, a document expressed
in the language of a licence must nevertheless be examined and construed by
the court in order to decide whether the rights and obligations enjoyed and
imposed create a licence or a tenancy.”
- In Street v Mountford, Lord Templeman stated: “any express reservation to the
landlord of limited rights to enter and view the state of the premises and to repair
and maintain the premises only serves to emphasise the fact that the grantee is
entitled to exclusive possession and is a tenant.
o In the case of Tilly, clause 3 of each licence agreement states that they must
vacate the property at 11.00am each day for one hour while the landlord
uses the bathroom. This shows that the landlord had limited rights to enter
and view the state of the premises, as the landlord was only allowed to use
the bathroom in the property at 11.00am each day. This shows that Tilly and
her boyfriend Fred had exclusive possession of the flat and are tenants.
- Similar case: as decided in the case of Antoniades v Villiers, the couple were held to
be tenants in joint possession.
o As joint tenants:
You have equal rights to the whole property;
The property automatically goes to the other owner if you die;
You cannot pass on your ownership of the property in your will.
