Theori Housing Management Services Limited v The London Borough of Redbridge, concerned a claim for possession of a property in Barking, East London. The property belonged to a Mrs Patel, who had supplied it to Theori under a Property Management Agreement. Under that agreement, Theori had been authorised to enter into agreements on Mrs Patel’s behalf and it was specifically anticipated in the agreement that the property would be supplied to local authorities to be used for the discharge of their statutory social housing functions. Accordingly, Theori had entered into a three-year agreement with Redbridge which was described as a lease, backed by an agreement appointing Theori to manage the property on the borough’s behalf.
All of this had been within a scheme known as WREN, an acronym by which the boroughs of Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Enfield and Newham entered into similar arrangements to source private sector properties to meet the demand placed upon them particularly in respect of homelessness applications under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
The matter first came before a Deputy District Judge in the County Court at Romford. Theori had been named as Claimant, Redbridge as Defendant, though the latter took no part in the proceedings at any stage. Neither Mrs Patel nor the actual occupant, who had been placed at the property by the local authority under a non-secure licence, had been party to the proceedings though the occupant had been notified that Mrs Patel was seeking the property back. Only the Claimant’s Counsel attended the initial possession hearing.
At that hearing, the Judge took the view that Theori lacked standing to bring the claim as it had no interest in the land. He felt that if Theori wished to hand the property back to Mrs Patel, the proper course would be for it to serve a notice terminating the contract with the local authority, thereby providing an unimpeded relationship between it and the occupant upon whom notice could then be served. He also suggested that the local authority could never in reality be in physical occupation, and he dismissed the claim for possession.
Granting Theori’s appeal, HHJ Gerald expressed a view that it was so obvious as to require no authority that Theori was able to issue the claim either as the landlord’s agent or because a tenancy by estoppel arose as between it and Redbridge. He deprecated the Judge’s reasoning below that a legal person could not be in possession, when companies and local authorities so often took possession through the placing of ‘natural’ individuals. In addition, he reiterated the well-established principle that all inferior rights of occupation (that is, leases and licences) carved out of a superior lease fell away with the termination of that lease.
He therefore set aside the Deputy District Judge’s order and granted possession to Theori, subject only to granting the occupant a right to apply to make any further representations she may wish to make prior to the possession date.
Comment
Although this case establishes no new principles, it does provide some certainty and relief for organisations involved with the WREN scheme and similar public/private sector housing collaborations.
The right for a management company to bring a claim in its own name and the principle of tenancy by estoppel was recently reaffirmed in Global 100 v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835 but can be traced back at least as far as Cooke v Loxley (1792) 5 TR 4. There should be no need for a landlord, having handed over the property for these purposes, to be involved in proceedings for their recovery still less made a party to the claim. There is equally no requirement of legal title in order to bring a claim, since the characteristics of the agreement determines the nature of the relationships (Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] UKHL 26).
This decision also maintains the well-established principle that subtenancies/licences fall away with the termination of superior leases (see Islington v Green and O’Shea [2005] EWCA Civ 56) such that there is also no need to make the occupant a defendant to the possession claim.
Theori Housing Management Services Limited v the London Borough of Redbridge (2023) 18th May 2023, decision of HHJ Gerald in the County Court at Central London.
The Claimant/Appellant was represented by Graeme Kirk of Lamb Chambers