Editha Mansions Residents Association Ltd

Editha Mansions Residents Association Ltd

v. Robert Smith (West London County Court - 2006)

We represented Robert Smith, who owns a flat in Editha Mansions (in Earls Court, London) which he sub-let to a group of flat-sharers. A clause in Mr Smith's lease of the flat required it to be "in one occupation only" and another clause prohibited among other things "underletting or parting with possession of part only". The claim alleged that these lease clauses prohibited flat-sharing.

It was significant that the flat-sharers would enter into a joint and several tenancy agreement with Mr Smith, that they lived together communally (while of course having their individual bedrooms) and that they would share responsibility with Mr Smith for finding any new member of the group upon one of their number leaving. The flat-sharers were all young professionals.

The chair of the residents company which owned the freehold/reversion to Editha Mansions felt strongly that the people who lived in Mr Smith's flat detracted from the nature of the block because they were not people she recognised on passing them in the building, they did not comprise a family and their lettings were "casual" - which was clarified at trial to mean that they were sometimes of short duration. Mr Smith was alleged to have contravened the lease by using a dining room and a study, according to the original plan of the flat, as third and fourth bedrooms.

The chair of the residents company persuaded a majority of flat owners to spend the block's service charge funds on bringing this claim, despite the vigorous objection of a minority. The claimant association was advised by TWM solicitors and Mark Loveday of Tanfield Chambers that its claim was well-founded.

A three day trial took place in May of 2006, when both parties were represented by Counsel: Mark Loveday for the residents association and Alastair Panton of 10 Kings Bench Walk for Robert Smith.

His Honour Judge Harris found in favour of Mr Smith. Although earlier lettings that had been granted to individuals had been in breach of duty, now that Mr Smith had under our advice been letting under one group agreement from time to time, and in view of the other factors noted above, there was no current breach of lease.

This is an important decision for the flat-sharing fraternity/sorority as it enables young and single people's housing needs to be accommodated in situations where such lease restrictions apply, which are quite common. Flat-sharing arrangements can also give a notably better rental return to landlords.

Jsb/bc

About Us Partners William Stockler Geoffrey Brunton Berry Holding-Parsons Information FAQ Contact us Recent cases Editha Mansions Residents Association Ltd JT v. Daejan Properties Ltd Seventh Earl of Malmesbury v. Strutt & Parker Articles Improvements & Additions to Business Premises Lessee-owned Blocks: Moving Towards Commonhold	Editha Mansions Residents Association Ltd Editha Mansions Residents Association Ltd v. Robert Smith (West London County Court - 2006) We represented Robert Smith, who owns a flat in Editha Mansions (in Earls Court, London) which he sub-let to a group of flat-sharers. A clause in Mr Smith's lease of the flat required it to be "in one occupation only" and another clause prohibited among other things "underletting or parting with possession of part only". The claim alleged that these lease clauses prohibited flat-sharing. It was significant that the flat-sharers would enter into a joint and several tenancy agreement with Mr Smith, that they lived together communally (while of course having their individual bedrooms) and that they would share responsibility with Mr Smith for finding any new member of the group upon one of their number leaving. The flat-sharers were all young professionals. The chair of the residents company which owned the freehold/reversion to Editha Mansions felt strongly that the people who lived in Mr Smith's flat detracted from the nature of the block because they were not people she recognised on passing them in the building, they did not comprise a family and their lettings were "casual" - which was clarified at trial to mean that they were sometimes of short duration. Mr Smith was alleged to have contravened the lease by using a dining room and a study, according to the original plan of the flat, as third and fourth bedrooms. The chair of the residents company persuaded a majority of flat owners to spend the block's service charge funds on bringing this claim, despite the vigorous objection of a minority. The claimant association was advised by TWM solicitors and Mark Loveday of Tanfield Chambers that its claim was well-founded. A three day trial took place in May of 2006, when both parties were represented by Counsel: Mark Loveday for the residents association and Alastair Panton of 10 Kings Bench Walk for Robert Smith. His Honour Judge Harris found in favour of Mr Smith. Although earlier lettings that had been granted to individuals had been in breach of duty, now that Mr Smith had under our advice been letting under one group agreement from time to time, and in view of the other factors noted above, there was no current breach of lease. This is an important decision for the flat-sharing fraternity/sorority as it enables young and single people's housing needs to be accommodated in situations where such lease restrictions apply, which are quite common. Flat-sharing arrangements can also give a notably better rental return to landlords. Jsb/bc