Background
West London National Health Service Trust sought possession of a house on the Broadmoor Hospital estate occupied by Keith Douglas Palmer, a retired nurse, together with his wife, daughter and grandchild. Palmer had received the monthly tenancy in 1988 because he worked at Broadmoor and understood that its continuation depended in part on his remaining an employee. His full-time employment ended in 2009 and his part-time work ended in 2014. The Trust served a notice to quit in January 2024, expiring on 31 March 2024.
Palmer argued that the tenancy should receive protection under the Rent Act 1977 despite the statutory exclusion for Crown and government tenancies preserved for certain pre-1991 NHS tenancies. He alleged discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and also contended that eviction would be disproportionate under Article 8. Separate disputes concerned a rent increase from £750 to £950 per month and utility invoices that Palmer had not paid since 2014, partly because of unresolved septic-tank issues.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that the tenancy was not protected by the Rent Act 1977. The asserted status of being a tenant whose landlord was the Crown or a government department was not an “other status” for Article 14 purposes under the applicable domestic authorities. In any event, Palmer was not in a position analogous to a private tenant because the tenancy was granted by his employer, on the employer’s site, partly for operational reasons, on advantageous terms and with an understanding linking occupation to employment. The statutory distinction was also not manifestly without reasonable foundation, given the legitimate aims of managing public assets and housing hospital workers. The court therefore rejected the requested Convention-compatible interpretation and found no basis for a declaration of incompatibility.
The Trust had lawfully terminated the tenancy, and possession was proportionate under Article 8. Palmer’s long residence, age, health, finances and attachment to the property did not meet the high threshold required to defeat the Trust’s property and management interests, particularly because the Trust needed its limited accommodation for current employees and Palmer had sufficient income and savings to seek alternative housing. The court declined to suspend or condition the possession order, while recording its expectation that the Trust would act consistently with assurances that enforcement would take account of Palmer’s circumstances.
The £950 monthly rent was validly set under the tenancy’s rent-review clause by the relevant Estates and Facilities personnel after consideration of the district valuer’s advice. Palmer was consequently liable for the rent shortfall until termination and for mesne profits afterward. He was also liable for properly invoiced utility charges: any arrangement allowing him to withhold payment pending septic-tank repairs no longer justified withholding once the tenancy ended. Recovery of utility charges and other relevant liabilities was limited to those arising within six years before the claim form was issued.
Key Takeaways
- A pre-1991 NHS staff tenancy preserved as a government tenancy under the transitional legislation remained outside the Rent Act 1977’s protected-tenancy regime.
- Article 8 did not prevent possession where the retired employee’s circumstances failed to outweigh the NHS Trust’s property rights and its need to manage scarce staff accommodation.
- The tenant owed validly increased rent, post-termination mesne profits and recoverable utility charges, subject to the applicable six-year limitation period.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the continuing effect of transitional Crown-tenancy exclusions on older NHS staff housing and the difficulty of using Article 14 to convert such an arrangement into a protected tenancy. It also confirms that long occupation of a public employer’s property, without more compelling personal circumstances, will rarely make possession disproportionate under Article 8 after the employee’s contractual right to occupy has ended.