The Court of Appeal held that a tenancy requiring the tenant to work on an estate, with no monetary value agreed for that work, is not an assured tenancy, so the landlords could recover possession on a notice to quit.
Key facts
- Who: Private tenants whose rent is services rather than money, and their landlords
- From: 9 February 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Phillips & Anor v Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55
Background
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment in Arthur Phillips and another v Tess Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55 on 9 February 2026. Lord Justice Males gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Moylan and Lady Justice Falk. The appeal was heard on 27 January 2026 and came from Hastings County Court.
The landlords, Mr and Mrs Phillips, let a lodge in Hildenborough, Kent, to Ms Garraway under an agreement dated 23 January 2023. It was a six-month rolling tenancy with one month's notice for either side. Under the heading "Rent", it required a minimum of two days' work on the estate, 9:00 to 17:00. Utilities such as council tax, electricity, heating oil and water were to be paid to the landlords separately. It was later agreed that she would work four half days each week instead.
The landlords gave notice in 2023 and, when Ms Garraway did not leave, served a notice to quit requiring possession by 31 October 2023. Possession proceedings began on 14 December 2023. The landlords did not rely on any ground in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 or on section 21.
The question
Is a tenancy that requires services, with no monetary value expressly attributed to them, a tenancy under which no rent is payable within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988? Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act says a tenancy "under which for the time being no rent is payable" cannot be an assured tenancy.
Ms Garraway argued that "rent" should carry its common law meaning, including money's worth, and that her services counted because a court could determine their value.
The decision
The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge granted possession on 12 January 2024, and Her Honour Judge Venn dismissed the first appeal on 8 January 2025. The Court of Appeal agreed with both.
The reasoning
The courts below accepted that services can be rent at common law. But for the 1988 Act, rent paid in kind counts only if the parties have agreed a monetary value for it, following decisions under the earlier Rent Acts. Here there was no agreed value and no agreed way of working one out. The tenancy therefore fell outside the 1988 Act, and the landlords were entitled to possession on the notice to quit without needing a statutory ground.
What this means for tenants and landlords
The ruling concerns a tenancy where the "rent" is work or other services and the agreement attaches no monetary value to them. Such a tenancy may not be an assured tenancy, which affects how a landlord can seek possession.
Whether an arrangement falls inside the 1988 Act depends on its wording and facts. Anyone with a tenancy paid for in services, or a notice to quit, should check what their agreement says about rent and get advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- Arthur Phillips & Anor v Tess Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 9 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/55