Third question
The law in the United Kingdom necessitates that every tenant and landlord sign a tenancy agreement before engaging in any contract (ref). The tenancy agreement, which most often is written, gives specific legal rights to both the tenant and the landlord. It is significant to note that the tenancy agreement ought not to conflict with the English land law. In the United Kingdom, a tenancy agreement can be comprised of both express and implied terms. The express terms are those that were given verbally and written down between the tenant and their landlord. On the other hand, implied terms refer to the legal rights and arrangements that have readily been established by practice and customs. Implied laws do not require being written down in one’s tenancy agreement (ref). It is a statutory requirement that the express terms on any tenancy agreement contain information of a landlord/ proprietor’s obligation to repair the property in question in case of any damages. Regardless of such a requirement, a landlord’s duty to repair damages to the property solely depends on the type of tenancy. Some tenancy agreements accord the tenants more rights than their fundamental rights as established by the law.
The prosecution in the case of Grange v Quinn (2013) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that implied terms to any tenancy are the most fundamental terms to any tenancy agreement (ref). Generally, the implied terms of a tenancy agreement are issued by the English law on property, and they apply to all tenancy agreements. Some of the most notable implied terms to any tenancy are such laws requiring a landlord to conduct necessary repairs on the property, the tenants to cohabit in peace without any nuisance from the landlord, and any tenants offer the access for any repair work when required (ref). The legal rights dictated by the property law in the United Kingdom often override any other law stated or written by a landlord to a tenant. For different implied terms to be practical in case of a dispute, it is significant that a contract of tenancy specifies whether or not the tenancy agreement was a license to occupy.
In the case that ownership of any property transfers from one part to the other, the tenants of the latter landlord are still protected and held liable to the implied and stated terms of the former landlord (ref). In the case of Brian and Alicia, Horace and Ian’s covenants laid out during the transfer of Sycamore House to Horace still govern and regulate the freedom of both Brian and Alicia as tenants. The agreements by Horace with Ian as the registered property owners dictate that the tenants and landlords would contribute equally to maintenance. The agreement also specifies that the houses, as transferred to the tenants, are not used for other purposes apart from residential purposes and that no further building work should be undertaken in the property. In light of the dispute between Brian and Alicia as tenants of Oak Cottage and Sycamore House, respectively, Alicia has neglected all the express and implied terms of the tenancy agreement as issued by their former landlord.
The judgment issued in Guiste v Lambeth LBC (2019) WECA Civ 1758, illustrates that any tenancy agreement can only be altered in the case that both the landlord and the tenant agree in writing (ref). Any change of tenancy agreements would require that the tenant and their landlord draw up a newly written document outlining the new and amended terms of the tenancy (ref). With this in mind, the property law considers Alicia to be in breach of the tenancy agreement. Brian is legally obliged to liaise with Horace, landowner, to issue Alicia a section 8 notice as an official notification of the breach (ref). Prior to issuing the section 8 notice, Brian is required by law to try and seek alternative means of mediating the dispute that exists between the two in terms of breach of tenancy terms. In the case that Alicia does not heed to the call by Brian to resolve their tenancy disputes and perform her due diligence, Brian can advise Horace, as the landlord to seek repossession of the property.
Drawing from the ruling of Jarvis v Evans (2020) EWCA Civ 854, Brian is also obliged by law to seek the services of a housing solicitor (ref). In this case, a housing solicitor can help Brian and Horace in seeking repossession of the property occupied by Alicia as a result of the breach of the tenancy agreement. In the United Kingdom, tenants and landlord laws might, at times, prove to be complicated and thus might require the services of an external party such as a housing solicitor to navigate such legal proceedings. The English property law gives Brian consent to take legal action against Alicia for breach of the tenancy agreement as issued by the landlord of the property.