## Facts

- Individuals resided in properties owned by Lambeth London Borough Council.
- These occupiers were permitted to remain through licenses granted by tenants with secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985.
- Lambeth Council sought possession of the properties, asserting that the licenses did not create proprietary rights enforceable against the Council as landlord.
- The occupiers claimed their arrangements constituted tenancies, providing protection from eviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the occupiers' arrangements amounted to tenancies, given the absence or presence of exclusive possession.
2. Whether licenses granted by tenants could confer proprietary rights against the Council, the landlord.
3. Whether Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided the occupiers with additional rights in possession proceedings.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the occupiers were licensees, not tenants, as there was no exclusive possession.
- Licenses issued by tenants were personal and did not bind the landlord or generate enforceable property rights.
- The legal nature of occupancy depended on the substance of the agreement, not its terminology or equitable arguments.
- Reliance on Article 8 ECHR was rejected; the right to respect for one’s home does not create property rights not recognised by domestic law.
- Precedent from Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 was affirmed, and the decision in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 was distinguished.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusive possession is the critical criterion for identifying a tenancy; without it, the occupier holds a license.
- A license is a personal permission lacking proprietary status and cannot override a landlord’s interests or bind successors in title.
- The intention of the parties is relevant, but legal consequences are determined by the substance of the agreement rather than headings or labels.
- Article 8 ECHR cannot confer property rights beyond those recognised under national law.
- Judicial focus remains on established property law principles in resolving possession disputes, with human rights arguments subject to these limits.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified the distinction between licenses and tenancies, holding that exclusive possession alone does not make an occupier a tenant. Licenses remain personal and do not create enforceable property rights against landlords, and human rights claims cannot override established domestic property law principles.


Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465