Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288
Local authority homeless hostel; whether occupation agreement was a lease or a licence
Facts
Westminster City Council (WCC) provided hostel accommodation for homeless single persons. The agreement between WCC and Clarke was described as a licence to occupy and it included a provision that Clarke could be required to change rooms or share his room with another occupier. The agreement allowed WCC to terminate the licence on at least seven days’ written notice, or immediately if Clarke failed to pay the charges or breached the terms or conditions. Following complaints about Clarke, WCC sought possession. Clarke claimed he was a secure tenant and entitled to the protections of the Housing Act 1985.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
WCC claimed the conditions within the agreement were not a sham to avoid conferring statutory protections upon the occupiers of the hostel. The conditions were necessary for the effective running of the hostel. On that basis, the council argued that its notice had ended Clarke’s right to occupy. Clarke argued that section 79(3) of the Housing Act 1985 could make him a secure tenant even if he lacked exclusive possession. If he were a secure tenant, the council would have to comply with the Act’s notice requirements and establish a statutory ground for possession.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords held that section 79(3) could protect a licensee only if the licence conferred exclusive possession of a separate dwelling. Clarke was held to be a licensee without exclusive possession. The conditions within the agreement were genuine and necessary for the effective running of the hostel, and not an attempt to avoid the statutory protections afforded to tenants. Granting rights of exclusive possession would be inconsistent with the purposes for which WCC had provided the accommodation, that is, as a hostel for homeless single persons. The House allowed the council’s appeal and restored the county court’s possession order with a new possession date.
Reported citations [1992] 2 AC 288, [1992] 1 All ER 695. Read the judgment on BAILII.
