London borough defeats appeal over licence and secure tenancy

The London Borough of Barnet has defeated an appeal over whether a woman found to be intentionally homeless but who continued to be housed under the Children Act 1989 had security of tenure.

Hearing an appeal in the High Court by Marian Dahir Mohamed against a county court ruling in favour of the council, Mrs Justice Thornton found the lower court had correctly interpreted paragraph 6b of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985.

She said the appeal concerned whether the occupation of accommodation by Ms Mohamed had secure status for the purposes of Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 or whether, as the council argued, it was a simple non-protected arrangement.

The judge said: “This turns on the construction of paragraph 6b of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985. In particular; does paragraph 6b require a single provision providing for vacant possession on expiry of a specified period or when required? Or, is it sufficient, in the present case, to simply provide for possession 'when required’?”

Ms Mohamed applied to the council as homeless in 2016 but Barnet deemed her intentionally homeless and therefore owed no housing duty though under the Children Act 1989 it provided Ms Mohamed her with accommodation.

The property’s owner used an agent Rent Connect as manager, which let it to Ms Mohamed for an initial 12 months and thereafter from month to month.

Barnet served notice to quit in February 2018 and later brought possession proceedings.

In Mohamed v London Borough of Barnet [2019] EWHC 1012 (QB) Thornton J said that the licence arrangement between Rent Connect and the council was a periodic monthly one by the time Ms Mohamed took occupation in April 2017.

She said: “I find that Rent Connect can obtain possession when it requires. This is sufficient because the licence is periodic. Accordingly, paragraph 6b) is satisfied and Ms Mohamed has no security of tenure.”

Mark Smulian