|
|
Housing co-operative
No protection for tenants
Outside Housing Acts
Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd v Berrisford
[2009] EWHC 2391 (Ch)
Summary
A tenant of a fully mutual housing co-operative association has no security of tenure under either the Housing Act 1985 or 1988. The tenancy can therefore be determined by a common law notice to quit that complies with the Protection from Harassment Act 1977.
More detail
Rule 2 of the co-operative provided that one of the objects of the co-operative was the provision and management of houses for occupation exclusively by members. Rule 8 provided that no person shall be or become a member unless that person is a tenant or prospective tenant. Rule 27 provided that:"27. An agreement may not be granted other than to a member. A member must comply with his obligations as contained in the Agreement and in particular may not assign the Agreement except if permitted by the Agreement then only to a member". These rules meant that the co-operative was a fully mutual housing co-operative association (within the meaning of s5 (2) of the Housing Act 1985 and s1 (2) Housing Associations Act 1985). A tenant of such a body cannot be an assured tenant (Sched 1, s12(1)(h) of the 1988 Act); nor can the tenancy be secure because the co-operative does not satisfy the landlord condition in s80 if the 1985 Act.
Thus, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy and bring the tenant's membership of the co-operative to an end by an appropriate notice to quit; and was entitled to possession without showing any other ground for possession.
Comment
Note that the CA only found that the landlord was entitled to possession once it had produced its rule book and thus firmly established that it was a fully mutual housing co-operative association.
It is also worth noting that at one point in the lower courts a human rights act defence was run. However, this was abandoned subsequently. This would seem to be right as it is difficult to see how a housing co-operative can be said to be a public body within the definition set out in the Court of Appeal case of Weaver.
Back to top
|
|
|