The Student Room Group

Street v Mountford - a fair decision?

Maybe I haven't read it properly but it seems to me to be slightly unfair on Mr. Street.

Mrs. Mountford clearly signed at the bottom of the document 'I understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts'.

...and then what does she do? She tries to protect herself using the Rent Acts! I can understand the courts wanting to prevent landlords from bad practice and allowing their grantees to think they're getting more than they really are, but as far as I could see Mr. Street didn't do much wrong here. It was quite clear that the agreement was a license and not a lease. :confused: But the house of lords didn't care and allowed Mrs. Mountford's appeal.


I bet she was a frail old lady!
Reply 1
DUFFMAN! agrees! Those Lords of Appeal just don't get the deal. OH, NO!!!
Captain Chaos
This like many other cases is a policy decision.

I'm sure Mrs M had no idea of the distinction and neither do many other people who rent property. The point is the HL don't want landlords using practice like this in order to prevent rental agreements from being leasehold and having mere licences. (It's just bad business practice)

I disagree with you and I think it is a good decision
Thanks for your reply. I'm not reallllllly decided yet. I haven't given it much thought. These were just my first impressions. Perhaps you are right. You probably are 'cos that's what the house of Lords said.
Reply 3
I don't really remember properly, but isn't it more of a tenancy at will?

Wasn't she granted a possessory right exclusive possession therefore more than a licence, but it couldn't have been a lease since it wasn't definite. The arrangement was based on generosity rather than an intention to create legal relations and therefore cannot have been an ordinary lease.

Wasn't there something (forgive me, I'm doing this from memory and it isnt a v good one!) about how the HL felt there was an intention to create legal relations as they were going to sell it to her eventually so it didn’t sit well in the categories: more than a licence, but not a lease. Somewhere between the two.

So basically, she had a licence with exclusive possession and thus a tenancy at will.

That make any sense to anyone or should I be in bed?!

And yeah I think it was Templeman. Something about how you can call a fork a spade, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a fork. Or maybe it was the other way around!
That's funny... I vividly remember posting the fork & spade quote :confused: Yet now I do not see it. How very strange.
Onearmedbandit
Maybe I haven't read it properly but it seems to me to be slightly unfair on Mr. Street.

Mrs. Mountford clearly signed at the bottom of the document 'I understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts'.

...and then what does she do? She tries to protect herself using the Rent Acts! I can understand the courts wanting to prevent landlords from bad practice and allowing their grantees to think they're getting more than they really are, but as far as I could see Mr. Street didn't do much wrong here. It was quite clear that the agreement was a license and not a lease. :confused: But the house of lords didn't care and allowed Mrs. Mountford's appeal.


I bet she was a frail old lady!


Ah Mike... this is one of the few property cases I've really engaged with! (Save the absolute joy of the nuisance cases). The decision makes sense- its basically an acceptance by conduct as opposed to acceptance by express contract. And the characteristics of th agreement are all in keeping with a lease- save the requirement it be kept 'tidy', although as Mr Street couldn't actually enter without her permission this seems a bit pointless in many respects.
Yeah I can see that it makes sense. I understand the principles behind it and all but I still think it's unfair on Mr. Street. There didn't seem to be any wrongdoings on his part... he has made it pretty clear to Mrs. Mountford what the score is.
Onearmedbandit
Yeah I can see that it makes sense. I understand the principles behind it and all but I still think it's unfair on Mr. Street. There didn't seem to be any wrongdoings on his part... he has made it pretty clear to Mrs. Mountford what the score is.


But did he? Most landlords (based on the landlords in my family) are thoroughly unscrupulous individuals. I mean look at those attempts to make tenancies licences!
tomcoolinguk
But did he? Most landlords (based on the landlords in my family) are thoroughly unscrupulous individuals. I mean look at those attempts to make tenancies licences!
I know. I just get the feeling that he's falling victim to an unfortunate stereotype, which is why I said 'I bet Mrs. Mountford was a frail old lady' :p:
Reply 9
Onearmedbandit
I know. I just get the feeling that he's falling victim to an unfortunate stereotype, which is why I said 'I bet Mrs. Mountford was a frail old lady' :p:


The point is rather that when Parliament pass an Act intended to protect tenants, to allow contracting out would entirely undermine that Act. The decision respects Parliamentary sovereignty - if an Act says a tenant shall always have certain rights, they shall always have them.
jcw
The point is rather that when Parliament pass an Act intended to protect tenants, to allow contracting out would entirely undermine that Act. The decision respects Parliamentary sovereignty - if an Act says a tenant shall always have certain rights, they shall always have them.
I see your point. :smile: