Marchant v Charters
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE WALLER |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | Plaint No. 7516247 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0707-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The Shoreditch County Court (His Honour Judge Willis)
The Master of The Rolls
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice Waller
THE PLAINTIFF (Respondent) appeared in person.
MR. D. GERRY (instructed by Messrs. Clifford, Watts, Compton & Co., Solicitors. London) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Appellant).
MR. H. WOOLF (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared as Amicus Curiae.
No. 131 Clapton Common is an ordinary sort of house. It is owned by Mrs. Marchant. It was at one time a private dwelling house, hut for the last 23 years she has let it off in single rooms to men only. She has regularly put the same advertisement in the local newspaper: "Attractive Batchelor Service Apartments. Superior House. Resident Housekeeper, Every convenience".
There are seven bed-sitting rooms. Each room is simply but nicely furnished with a bed, table, a couple of chairs and so forth. Each room has, of course, its gas ring and grill, so that the residents can do a little cooking on their own: as meals are not included. The bathroom and lavatory are shared. The housekeeper cleans the rooms every day and provides clean linen every week. It is a very usual sort of arrangement. Many young people live in bed-sitting rooms like this.
The question is whether the occupation of such a bedsitting room has security of tenure. Under the old Rent Acts before 1974 he had none. There was in those days a big difference between furnished and unfurnished lettings. The tenant of an unfurnished dwelling was protected from eviction. He had complete security of tenure. But the tenant of a furnished dwelling had not. He was provided with means of challenging the amount of rent he was charged, but these were not very effective, because he had no security of tenure, or at any rate, only for a very limited time if he challenged the rent. Now since the Rent Act 1974 the tenant of a furnished dwelling is given security of tenure. He is protected from eviction just as much as the tenant of an unfurnished dwelling. But does this new protection extend to the occupier of one of those bed-sitting rooms? That is the question raised by this case. Obviously it is one of much importance.
First I must tell these particular facts. In June 1972 Mr. Charteris took a room on the top (the third floor). It was only a small room, 9 feet 5 inches by 11 feet 6 inches. He paid £6 a week at first, but it was afterwards increased to £7 a week. He thought this was too high and applied to the Rent Officer to fix a fair rent. The Rent Officer reduced it to £4.25 a week, and his decision was confirmed by the Rent Assessment Committee. Mrs. Marchant did not agree with this. She gave Mr. Charteris notice to quit and took proceedings in the County Court to turn him out. Mrs. Marchant appeared in person. Counsel appeared for Mr. Charteris. The Judge made an order for possession. Mr. Charteris appealed to this court. Mrs. Marchant also appeared in person before us. But the case is of such general importance that we are glad to have the assistance of Mr. Woolf as amicus curiae.
Under the Rent Act, 1968, section 1(1) says that: "A tenancy under which a dwelling-house (which may be a house or part of a house) is let as a separate dwelling is a protected tenancy". Section 2 (l)(b) said that: " A tenancy is not a protected tenancy if under the tenancy the dwelling house is bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance, or any furniture". Section 2(3) said, however, that: "A dwellinghouse shall not be taken to be bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of attendance (or the use of furniture) unless the amount of rent which is fairly attributable to attendance (or use of furniture), having regard to the value of the attendance (or the use) to the tenant, forms a substantial part of the whole rent".
By the Rent Act 1974 (Schedule 4) the words (which I have put in brackets) "or the use of furniture", or use offurniture, and "or the use" were repealed. So section 2(3) must now be read without them. The result is that the use of furniture does not deprive the tenant of protection, but the giving of "attendance" may deprive him of security depending on the amount of rent attributable to the attendance.
Applying those provisions to the present case, there are two questions to be considered. First, was Mr. Charteris a tenant? Was this one room let to him as a separate dwelling? If not, he has no protected tenancy. Second, if he was a tenant, was the attendance given sufficiently substantial to deprive him of protection? The County Court Judge decided the first question in favour of Mr. Charteris. He held that he was a tenant. But he decided the second question against Mr. Charteris. He held that the "rent included services which were by no means minimal". So he made an order for possession.
In order to describe the facts, I will now read Mrs. Marchant's evidence: "I go to (the house) practically every day. I occasionally sleep there. (It) is a fine old house: a self-catering residential hotel for single men. Been running like this for 25 years. Each resident has a room of his own. They are completely furnished - wall to wall carpeting, curtains, bed, blankets, sheets, pillow, pillow case., towels - even tea towels - one arm chair and two wooden chairs, wardrobe, occasional tables, cooker, sink, with gas water heater, gas fire for heating, points for power. Each room has own meter for gas and electricity. Every resident gets daily cleaning of room, clean linen weekly, bathrooms are common. They can get an evening meal by arrangement with housekeeper, a they pay her. She is engaged on basis that she will provide food if required. All rooms are provided with cutlery, crockery, and cooking utensils - all that is necessary. Theycan also get breakfast and lunch. Through the years, I find more and more people are providing their own meals. The housekeeper keeps the money for the food she provides".
On that evidence the final question is, was Mr. Charteris a tenant or only a licensee? The law on this subject has been developed greatly in the last 25 years. I might almost say revolutionised. In 1952 I collected several of the cases in Errington v. Errington (1952) 1 King's Bench 297 and since that time there have been many more. The difference is very important under the Rent Acts (including the 1974 Act) because a "tenant" is given complete security of tenure, but a licensee is not. There are four or five cases, somewhat like the present, to which we have been referred. The first is Appah v. Parncliffe Investments Ltd. (1964) 1 Weekly Law Reports 1064. A house had been split up into 17 different rooms, each with its own Yale lock and key. The rooms were furnished. No meals were provided, but the rooms were cleaned daily, and beds made. Fresh linen was provided. A lady took one of the rooms, but owing to the negligence of the owners, someone was able to break into her room and steal her belongings. It was held that she was not a tenant but a licensee for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marchant v Charters
...Marchant Plaintiff (Respondent) and George Albert Charters(Previously described as G. Charteris) Defendant (Appellant) [1976] EWCA Civ J0707-2 Before: The Master of The Rolls Lord Justice Orr and Lord Justice Waller Plaint No. 7516247 In The Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal On Ap......