|
The rules on joint Ts can operate particularly harshly within the rent sector
(especially with public Ls). For instance, T may think he has security of tenure
under a secure or assured tenancy and then suddenly receive a letter from his
social L informing him that he no longer has the right to occupy. This is because
the other joint T has given notice to quit (probably encouraged by L, who lacks
the resources or inclination to provide separate homes for each of the joint Ts).
The basis on which a joint tenancy works was explained by the HL:
‘The true character of the tenancy is this, not that the T holds of each so long as he and each shall please, but he holds of the whole of all so long as he and all shall please; and as soon as anyone of the joint Ts gives notice to quit, he effectively puts an end to that tenancy; the T has a right to give up the whole.’ (Hammersmith [1992]).
Thus, one joint T can give a notice to quit that is binding on all the joint Ts.
There had been arguments raised under ECHR that the ‘innocent’ joint T
could use Human Rights arguments so as not to be deprived of his home in
this surreptitious way. However, such arguments have largely been
squashed by the recent HL decision in K [2006], noted previously. However, there are still those who argue that there are technical points that can still be raised to justify the application for ECHR in joint
tenancy cases. But the recent guidance of the HL is very clear and emphatic
and we think it unlikely that any such arguments will succeed. Those
interested will find a discussion in [2006] SJ 464.
|
|
June 2006 |
