R v South Middlesex Rent Tribunal ex parte Beswick

Rent tribunal–Application for security of tenure of room in YWCA hostel–Tribunal wrong to reject application on the ground that the landlord of the premises was not resident–Applicant’s interest a licence, not a tenancy, and therefore a Part VI contract whatever the position as to residence of the landlord 64 This was an application by Miss Diane Elizabeth Beswick, a resident occupying a single room in premises at 9-10 North Common Road, London W5, owned by the Young Women’s Christian Association, for an order of mandamus directing the South Middlesex Rent Tribunal to hear and determine according to law an application for security of tenure made by her on November 5 1975. Mr A Arden (instructed by James Saunders & Co) appeared for the applicant. Neither the tribunal nor the landlords were represented. Giving the first judgment, THOMPSON J said that the applicant had been a resident at 9-10 North Common Road, a YWCA hostel, since 1973, and in June 1974 she moved into a single room. This room was her only home, and she was not a temporary resident. In common with other residents she had use of the dining-room, living-room, laundry-room, bathroom and toilet. On October 27 1975 she was given notice to quit, and on November 5 1975 she applied to the rent tribunal for security of tenure. The members of the tribunal visited the premises on November 27 1975, but then decided that they had no jurisdiction to hear the application on the ground that there was no resident landlord within the meaning of the Rent Act 1974, the warden of the hostel being merely an employee of the landlords, the YWCA. The applicant’s contention, which was supported by solicitors for the YWCA in a letter, was that the tribunal confused matters and failed to appreciate that the applicant had not a tenancy, but a licence to occupy for consideration, and that those provisions of the 1974 Act which deprived tribunals of jurisdiction in cases of furnished lettings where there was no resident landlord were irrelevant. He (his Lordship) thought that this was indeed a case of a licence to occupy, and that the applicant had a contract to which Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 applied. In those circumstances an order of mandamus should be granted directing the tribunal to hear the application. LORD WIDGERY and KENNETH JONES J agreed, and an order was made accordingly. No order was made as to costs.