The Court of Appeal has clarified when services can count as “rent” for the purposes of an assured tenancy in the case of Garraway v Phillips [2026] EWCA Civ 55.
The case involved a rural tenancy where the occupier undertook two days’ work a week on the landlord’s estate, but the agreement did not assign any monetary value to that work.
The court held that Parliament intended the meaning of “rent” in the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) to remain consistent with earlier Rent Act authorities, including Hornsby v Maynard [1925] 1 KB 514 and Barnes v Barratt [1970] 2 QB 657 requiring any goods or services forming part of rent to be monetary quantified.
The court confirmed that without that qualification, no rent is “payable” and where no rent is payable, a tenancy is excluded from being an assured tenancy. As a result of being excluded from being an assured tenancy the landlord was able to recover possession using a notice to quit.
Who is this most relevant to?
This decision will be particularly relevant for rural landlords, estate owners and anyone using arrangements where labour or services are provided instead of conventional payment. If the intention is for those services to count as rent, the agreement must expressly state a monetary value.
Our Property Litigation team advises both landlords and tenants on the correct classification of residential tenancies and the consequences for possession rights.
If you would like guidance on how this decision may affect your portfolio or agreements, please get in touch.