[2025] UKUT 264 (LC)

As is made clear in that decision, the Tribunal’s determination involved very little by way of fact finding and was very largely concerned with the interpretation of a) a document which the Tribunal determined was a licence, not a lease, and b) section 263(3)(b) of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”) and its application to that licence.

The [appellant’s] case was that it could rely on the statutory exception contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 of the Act on the basis that the person managing or having control of the property was a local housing authority.

In order to do this, the [appellant] needed to show that the local authority would receive rent for the property in question but for having entered into an arrangement with another person who is not an owner of the premises by virtue of which that other person receives the rents or other payments.

The [appellant’s] case was that it had entered into a licence agreement with the local authority as a result of which section 263(3)(b) applied.

The Tribunal rejected that argument. It accepted that the [appellant] was not an owner of the premises and also accepted that, but for the licence agreement, the local authority would itself have received payments from occupiers. However, it concluded that it was not the case that the [appellant] received payments by virtue of that licence agreement and so the requirements of section 263(3)(b) of the Act were not met.

The [appellant], in their grounds of appeal, argue that the Tribunal was wrong to reach that conclusion. They argue that because section 263(3)(b) refers to “an arrangement” rather than “an agreement”, the Tribunal should have considered the wider context in which the licence agreement itself came about. They argue that the licence agreement was part of a wider arrangement which, when considered as a whole, did provide for the [appellant] to receive payments from occupiers.

The Tribunal considers that that ground is certainly arguable.

The Tribunal also considers that the issue raised by the [appellant] is of potentially wide implication and that it is right for it to be considered afresh by an appellate body. In reaching that conclusion the Tribunal bears in mind that this case is one of the many property guardian cases which have previously given rise to numerous questions of statutory interpretation which have been determined by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The issue in this case, whilst closely related to those raised in previous cases, is not one which has previously been the subject of a considered determination by an appellate body.