R v Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal, ex parte Barrett

Jurisdiction of rent tribunal–Whether applicant to tribunal had the status of a tenant or contractual licensee at date of application–Applicant the deserted wife of a person whose holiday tenancy had expired before date of application–No evidence that applicant had sufficient status to give tribunal jurisdiction–Tribunal’s decision quashed In these proceedings William Barrett, of 29 Arundel Gardens, London W11, applied for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal given on May 18 1977 whereby, on an application by Jennifer Ridley under Part VI of the Rent Act 1968, they fixed a rent of a room occupied by her at 29 Arundel Gardens at £56.80 per four weeks, inclusive of rates, and, in the absence of a direction for the substitution of a shorter period, afforded her six months’ security of tenure. K A D Hornby (instructed by Myers, Ebner & Deaner) appeared on behalf of the applicant; Harry Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the tribunal. PARK J, giving the first judgment at the invitation of Lord Widgery CJ, said that by an agreement dated December 10 1976 the applicant let to one, Mohamed Atabani, a furnished room at 29 Arundel Gardens. The agreement showed it to be a holiday letting for a period of 17 weeks from December 15 1976 to April 13 1977 at a rental of £64 for every four weeks. At the time of that agreement Mr Atabani was married to Jennifer Ridley, but Mr Atabani left the premises after a short time and his wife, using the name of Ridley, continued in occupation and paid rent until towards the end of March 1977. She was still in occupation when the letting to Mr Atabani expired on April 13. On April 18 she applied to the Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal for consideration of rent and security of tenure. She described herself as a ‘lessee.’  On the face of the application there appeared to be a Part VI tenancy. There is evidence that after the expiry of the letting to Mr Atabani Mrs Ridley had asked the applicant, Mr Barrett, to let the room to her and that he had refused. Mr Barrett, however, said that he agreed not to press for her to leave until June 22 1977. Mrs Ridley signed a letter written by Mr Barrett purporting to withdraw her application to the tribunal. A few days later she wrote to the tribunal stating that she did not wish to withdraw her application. The tribunal hearing took place on May 18 1977. Both parties appeared in person. Mr Barrett took the point that the letting was a holiday letting and that in consequence the tribunal had no jurisdiction. As shown in their ‘reasons for decision’ the tribunal were not satisfied on the evidence before them (and in the absence of the production of any written agreement) that there had been a holiday letting. There was no reference in these reasons to consideration having been given to the precise status of Mrs Ridley at the date of the application. Mr Hornby had argued that the vital point was that at the date of the application Mrs Ridley did not have any status at all. There was no evidence that she had become a tenant or a contractual licensee. Mr Woolf had argued that there were two pieces of evidence which supported her status. The first was that she had paid rent to Mr Barrett. She had not, however, paid rent after a date towards the end of March. The earlier payments of rent were not sufficient to enable the tribunal to decide that she had acquired a tenancy. The affidavit on behalf of the tribunal does not go on to say that there were grounds for an inference to be drawn that she had become a tenant or a licensee. The second piece of evidence mentioned by Mr Woolf was the letter dated April 26 written to the tribunal by Mr Barrett and signed also by Mrs Ridley stating that they had agreed to apply to the county court for a possession order to take effect in eight weeks’ time and for an order for £128 mesne profits. The objection to this was, however, that this arrangement was made after the date of application. Events taking place after the application could not be looked at as evidence of the status of Mrs Ridley at the date of the application. There was in fact no evidence before the tribunal on which they could properly find that Mrs Ridley was a tenant or contractual licensee. Consequently the tribunal had no jurisdiction. It followed that the order of certiorari should go. MAY J agreed. LORD WIDGERY CJ, also agreeing, said that the question of a holiday letting had turned out to be irrelevant to the decision of the rent tribunal. The applicant was awarded not confer on her a status before the tribunal. It was ordered that certiorari would go to quash the decision of the rent tribunal. The applicant was awarded costs.