Reading 0118 957 5337
enquiries@hewetts.co.uk
enquiries@hewetts.co.uk
Where a dwelling is let by a private sector landlord to an individual who occupies it as their only or principal home, the tenancy is ordinarily an assured tenancy to which the Housing Act 1988 applies. Such tenancies are not terminable by a landlord serving notice to quit but, instead, using a s8 Notice. Among other exclusions, a tenancy is, however, not an assured tenancy if it is one “under which for the time being no rent is payable”. Such a tenancy will be contractual only and terminable in accordance with its terms and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
In the case of Phillips and another v Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55 Ms Garraway was the tenant of Mr and Mrs Phillips under a tenancy dated 23 January 2023. The tenancy provided that the rent was a “Minimum of 2 days work on the estate with hours from 9:00 to 17:00. Breaks to be agreed.”
In due course, Mr and Mrs Phillips decided they wanted to recover possession. They served notice to quit and issued possession proceedings. Ms Garraway defended the proceedings. She contended that the tenancy was one to which the Housing Act 1988 applied and as such was not terminable by notice to quit. Mr and Mrs Phillips argued that the tenancy was one under which no rent was payable and therefore not an assured tenancy. In response, Ms Garraway argued that “rent” at common law included the provision of services. Mr and Mrs Phillips pointed to authorities under the Rent Acts which had held that “rent” had to be money or some other benefit which the parties had agreed had a quantified monetary value. They further drew attention to the impracticalities of “rent” being given the common law meaning (e.g. the role of the FTT in setting a rent under s.13 did not make sense if “rent” included services”).
The judge found for Mr and Mrs Phillips.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. “Rent” under the 1988 Act meant money or some other benefit with a quantified monetary value. That was consistent with the position under the Rent Acts and best fit with the wider scheme of the 1988 Act. This tenancy did not have a monetary rent nor had the parties agreed the value of the services, so that the exception in Sch.1 meant that it was not an assured tenancy.
Oliver Kew - o.kew@hewetts.co.uk
Published on 15/06/2026