Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:09:20.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Changing Meaning of “Dwelling-House”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2002

Jill Morgan
Jill Morgan*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of East Anglia
Get access

Abstract

This article analyses Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2001] UKHL 43, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 806 in which, for the first time, the House of Lords considered the meaning of the word “dwelling” (an essential ingredient of security under the Rent Act 1977 and the Housing Acts of 1985 and 198) and overturned the previously accepted proposition that premises cannot be a dwelling unless cooking facilities are provided. The implications of the decision are considered not only in the context of the private rented sector but also in relation to secure tenancies granted by local authorities and certain other public landlords.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , 24 June 2002 , pp. 312 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My thanks go to Helen Carr and Martin Dixon for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. All errors are, of course, my own.

References

1 Uratemp Ventures Limited v. Collins [2001] UKHL 43, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 806 at para. [10], per Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

2 Honore, T. The Quest for Security: Employees, Tenants, Wives (London 1982)Google Scholar.

3 See Doling [1983] J.P.E.L. 713-723.

4 Examples include Somma v. Hazelhurst and Savelli [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1014 and Buchman v. May [1978] 2 All E.R. 993, in both of which the Court of Appeal was minded to pay greater regard to the form of the agreements rather than their substance.

5 S. 21 of the Housing Act 1988 enables the landlord to recover possession by giving the assured shorthold tenant not less than two months’ written notice stating that possession of the dwelling-house is required. The court has no discretion to consider the issue of reasonableness, nor to suspend the making of the order.

6 An occupier who falls outside the full protection provided by the Rent Act 1977 or Housing Act 1988 (in the private rented sector) or the Housing Act 1985 (in the public rented sector) may, as a “residential occupier” be entitled to four weeks’ notice to quit and a court order by virtue of ss. 5 and 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

7 For a tenancy to exist the three hallmarks of a tenancy (exclusive possession, for a term, at a rent) must be present (Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809).

8 See n. 1 above.

9 Thus, where a non-resident landlord grants a tenant exclusive occupation of, say, a bedroom but the tenant shares the remainder (kitchen, bathroom, sitting room) with someone else, a possession order cannot be made in respect of the shared accommodation unless an order is also made in respect of the separate accommodation (Rent Act 1977, s. 22(5); Housing Act 1988, s. 3).

10 It is not clear why Mr. Collins was claiming to be an assured tenant under the Housing Act 1988, rather than a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977, given that he took up occupation of his original room in the hotel before the 1988 Act came into force on 15 January 1989.

11 [1992] 2 A.C. 288.

12 At para. [40].

13 Ashridge Investments Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Lccal Government [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1320, per Lord Denning M.R. at p. 1324.

14 Makins v. Elson [1977] 1 W.L.R. 687.

15 Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co. Ltd. v. Pope [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1941.

16 Prout v. Hunter [1924] 2 K.B. 736.

17 See Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant, para. 23.009.

18 See Curl v. Angelo [1948] 2 All E.R. 189—a room in a hotel annexe used solely as a bedroom; Wright v. Howell (1948) 92 Sol. Jo. 26—an unfurnished room, with no water supply or cooking facilities, in which the tenant no longer slept.

19 (1991) 23 H.L.R. 168.

20 Per Viscount Simonds in Goodrich v. Paisner [1957] A.C. 65, at p. 76.

21 [1945] 1 K.B. 144.

22 [1945] 1 K.B. 474.

23 [1969] 1 W.L.R. 803.

24 At para. [49].

25 At para. [57].

26 At para. [12].

27 At para. [4].

28 (1991) 23 H.L.R. 212.

29 (1992) 24 H.L.R. 109.

30 (2001) 33 H.L.R. 4.

31 Aslan v. Murphy (No. 1) [1989] 3 All E.R. 130.

32 See Brillouet v. Landless (1995) 28 H.L.R. 836.

33 Compare Marchant v. Charters [1977] 3 All E.R. 918 in which there was held to be a licence of a self-contained room in a residential hotel because of the daily cleaning of the room and the weekly provision of clean linen, and Mehta v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc (2000) 32 H.L.R. 45 in which the provision of minimal cleaning and fortnightly sheet-changing services did not deny the occupier exclusive possession.