Home Page > Property Law Library > Residential tenancies > Secure tenancies

Home Page
Editorial Team

Anti-social behaviour
Assured tenancies
Assured shortholds
Housing disrepair claims
Homeless persons
Human rights
Introductory tenancies
Licences - Bruton Tenancies
Neighbouring Noises
Notice to quit
Proceeds of crime
Rent Act 1977
Rent books
Right to buy
Secure tenancies
Tenancy deposit
Tenant's notice to quit
Tolerated trespassers
Unfair contract terms
Unlawful eviction

Current page

Secure tenancies

This page contains material on:
  • Business tenancies to residential tenancies - secure?
  • Misrepresentation inducing a tenancy
  • Reasonableness
  • Succession
  • Suitable alternative accommodation
  • Tenancies at will not secure
  • Variation of terms

Business tenancy to residential

Tomkins v Basildon DC
[2002] EWCA Civ 876

Property initially let under a business tenancy and later used for residential purposes were not protected by the Housing Act 1985. There was no surrender of the original business tenancy and re-grant of a residential tenancy. L had simply not enforced the user covenant in the lease.


Ground 5 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 provides the following ground for possession:
    "The tenant is the person, or one of the persons, to whom the tenancy was granted and the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by

    (a) the tenant, or
    (b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation".

Evidence of inducement

Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Roberts [2004] EWCA Civ 940.

This was a claim for possession of a secure tenancy made under Grounds 1 (rent) and 5 (misrepresentation inducing grant of a tenancy) of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. In rejecting the landlords claim for possession on Ground 5 the judge had been strongly influenced by the fact that no-one had been expressly called to state that the tenancy had been granted as a result of the misstatement. The CA held that this is the wrong approach. The inducement could be inferred from the circumstances:
    "The Act does not define 'induced'. The judge was strongly influenced by the absence of evidence from the actual decision maker and rejected the evidence which was before him about the Authority's policy in responding to housing applications. In so far as he is to be taken to have concluded that without evidence from the actual decision maker, the burden of proof could not be discharged, he was plainly wrong. No basis for the existence of such a strict evidential requirement has been made out. Nor ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

    Existing members, to login click => here
    If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

    Free Summaries £nil
    Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)