Law Case Content Writing For lawyer client

 1.       In December 2023 Barry owned a large 3 storey eight-bed–sitting room property. Barry had initially bought the property to let out the rooms so he could supplement his income as a teacher. Barry started going out with his current girlfriend Wiki and offered her the right to occupy one of the bedrooms for 6 months starting in January 2024.

However, unfortunately for Barry the eight bed-sitting rooms were already occupied by other residents.  The first 2 floors were occupied by students who had approached Barry as a group in September 2023 and asked to rent the bed-sitting rooms paying £300 a month in rent. Each of the students held their respective rooms under similar but separate written agreements signed on the same day. Each document contained a clause stating that “nothing in this document shall be construed as creating a tenancy” and a further clause allowing Barry to move anyone else into each of the bed–sitting rooms so they could be shared by two people. Barry also retained a key to access the properties between 10am – 2pm and said it was so that he could clean the rooms and charged the students an additional £50 each for cleaning services which he carried out.

The basement flat was occupied by Gloria who signed a similar agreement to the one signed by the students, but was not charged the additional sum for cleaning. Gloria has always cleaned the basement flat herself and Barry has never entered the flat to do this.

Wiki is now insisting Barry keeps his promise to allow her to move into the property.

Advise Barry on whether he can obtain possession of one of the bed-sitting rooms or the basement flat using relevant statute and case law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section B

Introduction

In property law, a lease grants tenants long-term, exclusive possession rights with statutory protections like security of tenure and eviction safeguards. In contrast, a license provides occupants a revocable permission to use premises, lacking transferability and substantial legal protections. This distinction guides negotiations between landlords and occupants and influences procedures for handling disputes to avoid legal conflicts.

To help Barry accommodate Wiki in his property, we'll assess the occupancy status of the students, Gloria, and Wiki herself, determining whether they hold leases or licenses based on their agreements. This assessment will guide Barry in taking the necessary legal steps to secure a room for Wiki while respecting the rights of current occupants.

Students on the First Two Floors

Legal Status of Occupancy: The students pay £300 monthly for bed-sitting rooms under agreements explicitly denying tenancy but allowing room-sharing and Barry's cleaning services.

Certainty of Term and Exclusive Possession: In Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417, Mr. Antoniades, the owner of a flat, agreed with Mr. Villiers and Ms. Bridger, a couple, to occupy the premises. They signed separate but identical agreements the House of Lords ruled that an agreement labeled as a license was a lease because the occupants had exclusive possession, despite a clause allowing the landlord to introduce other occupants, which was deemed a sham. This principle suggests that Barry’s students and Gloria might have leases due to their exclusive possession, regardless of the labels on their agreements. Barry should reclaim a room from the students to accommodate Vicky, as their agreements may be seen as leases under this precedent.

The Intent of the Parties and Legal Implications: In Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1, Arnold, a tenant, occupied a shop under a lease. When Ashburn Anstalt acquired the freehold interest in the property, they allowed Arnold to continue occupying the shop under an agreement. The court ruled that a deal labelled as a license could be considered a lease if it granted exclusive possession for a term at rent, regardless of the label. In this case, the agreement allowed the tenant to remain in the property without a formal lease, but the court found that the agreement's substance created a tenancy due to the tenant's exclusive possession.

This principle is relevant for Barry: while the students are likely licensees due to Barry's retained access, Gloria's exclusive possession of the basement flat makes her a tenant. Applying this understanding, Barry can serve the appropriate notices and comply with property laws to accommodate Vicky.

Gloria in the Basement Flat

Legal Status of Occupancy: Gloria occupies Barry's basement flat under an agreement similar to the students', with regular use and provisions for Barry's cleaning access.

Exclusive Possession and Practical Considerations: In Markou v Davies [2004] EWCA Civ 381, Arnold was a tenant occupying a shop under a lease when Ashburn Anstalt acquired the freehold interest in the property and entered into an agreement allowing Arnold to continue occupying the shop. The contract specified that Arnold could remain in the shop rent-free until given one quarter’s notice to vacate and was labeled as a license rather than a lease, the court found that despite an agreement allowing the landlord access to cleaning, the tenant had exclusive possession as the landlord did not exercise this right. Applying this to Barry's situation, Gloria may similarly have exclusive possession of the basement flat if Barry has not been entering for cleaning, suggesting she is a tenant rather than a licensee.

Lease vs Licence Determination:  Gloria's legal status—whether as a tenant with a lease or a licensee—depends on the extent of her exclusive possession and the court's interpretation of the agreement terms. Practical arrangements and the nature of Barry's access to cleaning will influence this determination.

Legal Implications: If Gloria maintains exclusive possession without Barry exercising his right to enter, similar cases like Antoniades v Villiers [1988] suggest she could be considered a tenant despite agreement clauses suggesting otherwise. To evict Gloria, Barry would likely need to serve a Section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988, providing a minimum of two months' notice after any fixed term or during a periodic tenancy.

Vicky Issue:

Introduction of Vicky to the Property:

Barry's current challenge involves accommodating his girlfriend, Vicky, within the property where the students and Gloria currently reside.

Legal Implications and Options for Accommodation:

Barry needs to assess whether he can accommodate Vicky within any of the existing rooms or flats currently occupied by the students or Gloria.

He must consider the legal status of each occupant (lease or license) and the applicable statutory and contractual rights for obtaining possession or making arrangements for Vicky's accommodation.

Practical and Legal Considerations:

Depending on whether the occupants hold leases or licenses, Barry's options for accommodating Vicky will vary.

He should consider negotiating with the current occupants or seeking legal advice to ensure compliance with all legal requirements and minimize any potential disputes.

ADVICE TO BARRY

Students on the First Two Floors and Gloria in the Basement Flat:

In Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4, the court emphasized that exclusive possession is crucial in determining whether an agreement constitutes a lease or a license. Despite any labeling in the agreement, it legally qualifies as a lease if the occupant enjoys exclusive possession. Applying this precedent to Barry's situation with the students on the first two floors, where Barry retains rights to enter for cleaning and introducing third parties, they likely do not have exclusive possession, aligning them more with licensees than tenants under Street v Mountford. Therefore, Barry can proceed with eviction using a 28-day notice under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, as they lack the exclusive possession required for a lease.

 Despite agreements disclaiming tenancies, Barry's control implies a licensee status (Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417, Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1). Therefore, Barry can proceed with a 28-day notice under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 for the students, considering their lack of exclusive possession.

Conversely, Gloria's exclusive possession of the basement flat suggests she is a tenant with stronger legal protections (Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417, Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766, Markou v Da Silvesa [1989] 1 WLR 1358). Barry must follow the Section 21 notice procedure under the Housing Act 1988 to evict Gloria, ensuring at least a two-month notice period post any fixed term.

 

 

Advice to Accommodate Vicky:

To accommodate Vicky promptly and legally, Barry should regain possession of a room from the students, who are licensees and can be asked to vacate with a 28-day notice. This approach minimizes potential legal disputes and ensures compliance with legal requirements.

Overall Conclusion

Barry faces legal complexities with leases and licenses involving students, Gloria, and Vicky. The students are likely licensees due to Barry's retained access for cleaning and introducing third parties, lacking the exclusive possession required for a lease. He can evict them with a 28-day notice under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Gloria, having exclusive possession of the basement flat, is a tenant with strong legal protections, requiring a Section 21 notice for eviction under the Housing Act 1988. To accommodate Vicky efficiently, Barry should reclaim a room from the students, ensuring compliance with property laws and understanding lease and license distinctions crucial for effective property management.