This is an extract of our Residential Tenancies Housing Act 1988 Part 1 document, which we sell as part of our Landlord and Tenant Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Landlord and Tenant Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES -
HOUSING ACT 1988
* INTRO * ASSURED TENANCIES * ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
* EXCLUSIONS * SECURITY OF TENURE * ENDING AN AT/ AST *
SEEKING POSSESSION OF AN AT/ AST * INTRO
The majority of tenancies created after 15th January 1989 will be either assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies (subject to transition provisions in s.34)
Main difference between the two is the level of security given to T
an AST is a form of assured tenancy, and so all of the general provisions concerning creation, terms, continuation and termination of assured tenancies apply equally to
Assured Tenancies (ATs)
Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs)
L can obtain possession only by proving one of the grounds under Sch 2 Housing Act 1988
L needs only to show that the tenancy has come to an end and that he has given T proper notice requiring possession before possession will be ordered ASSURED TENANCIES (ATs)
Most assured tenancies granted after 28th Feb 1997 will be ASTs - but REMEMBER, an
AST is a form of assured tenancy, and so all of the general provisions concerning creation, terms, continuation and termination of assured tenancies apply equally to
Housing Act 1988, s.1(1)
A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured tenancy if and so long as—
(a) the tenant or, as the case may be, each of the joint tenants is an individual; and
(b) the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwellinghouse as his only or principal home; and
(c) the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (6) below, cannot be an assured tenancy. Rent Act 1977 Comparison
Pretty much word-for-word the phrasing of s.1 RA 1977. BUT it adds 2 further requirements:
Tenant is an individual
• Occupies as only or principal home
Therefore it draws significantly stricter parameters around the type of tenancy that will qualify for statutory protection.
Therefore case law on 'a tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling' the case law on the 1977 Act is relevant. SEE CASE LAW IN PREVIOUS SECTION
Can be fixed-term or periodic, it may be a sub tenancy or an agreement for a tenancy (s.45(1)).
Can be assumed that a tenancy at will and at sufferance are capable of attracting protected tenancy status, but this will only be the case if rent is payable under the tenancy (Sch 1, Part I,
"a dwelling house"
Includes a house or part of a house (s.45(1)).
"let as a separate dwelling"
Must be quantifiable rent - if no rent is payable the tenancy will be excluded by Sch 1, para 3. "a dwelling house"
R v Nottinghamshire Rent Officer ex parte Allen (1985) - A caravan may also be included, depending on whether it is moveable or fixed permanently in position.
"Where the caravan is let as a moveable chattel, there can be no question of it being properly described as a house. Where, on the other hand, it is rendered completely immobile, either by the removal of its wheels or by it being permanently blocked by some brick or concrete construction, then it is more likely to be regarded as a house in the same way as a bungalow or prefabricated dwelling would be. Difficulties will arise when the facts are somewhere between those two extremes. The rent officer or the county court judge, as the case may be, will have regard to the features of the caravan which may reveal elements of site permanence, on the one hand, or immobility on the other. Are the wheels still on the vehicle? Are the stabilising struts of a permanent nature or of a kind ordinarily used by a caravan when moving from site to site? Are the services attached to the caravan? If so, are they of a fixed nature or readily detachable? Is the caravan ever moved? If so, for what purpose and with what facility?" (Farquharson J)
• "If the occupancy of the caravan is such that it is plainly used by the tenant as his or her permanent home, then there is a greater likelihood of the caravan being permanently in place rather than it being used as a temporary expedient." (Farquharson J)
• "The feature of mobility is not, of course, the sole determining factor in deciding on which side of the line any particular case will fall. However, it is perhaps more significant than any other." (Farquharson J)
Chelsea Yacht and Boat v Pope  - Whether or not a houseboat is protected will depend on whether it has become annexed to the land.
Houseboat was moored to a pontoon, and the bank and the bed of the river. when it is at low tide the boat just sits on the ground. Single story,
had water, electricity and other services by plug in connection. Whether it has become part of the land depended on the nature of the fixings, and because they were easily removed it is said they were not fixtures.
• "In considering the degree of annexation, it is obviously of importance that the chattel can be removed without injury to itself or to the land. There must also be a degree of permanence. Purpose is also important" (Tuckey LJ)
Elitestone v Morris  - This case outlines the general principles for judging annexation
"If a structure can only be enjoyed in situ, and is such that it cannot be removed in whole or in sections to another site, there is at least a strong inference that the purpose of placing the structure on the original site was that it should form part of the realty at that site, and therefore cease to be a chattel." (Lord Lloyd)
"In the case of the house the answer is as much a matter of common sense as precise analysis. A house which is constructed in such a way so as to be removable, whether as a unit, or in sections, may well remain a chattel, even though it is connected temporarily to mains services such as water and electricity. But a house which is constructed in such a way that it cannot be removed at all, save by destruction, cannot have been intended to remain as a chattel. It must have been intended to form part of the realty." (Lord Lloyd)
Mew v Tristmire 
The question of annexation is to be judged at the date of installation onto the land. boats get attached in the same way as chelsea yacht. Boats have been there long enough that they can't float anymore. So if you move them they will break up and sink - the court said they have not become part of the land, have to make the assessment at the time they come to the land, can't rely on your neglect
"That question has to be answered by reference to their condition at the time when they were placed on to the supporting structures. Because there is no evidence about this, it has to be assumed that they were then in a reasonable state of repair." (Patten LJ)
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Landlord and Tenant Law Notes.