Wolff v Waddington (1990)

A landlord was a resident landlord as the dwelling occupied by the tenant formed part of the same building as that of the landlord, despite that it was entirely self-contained.

The landlord granted a tenancy of part of an extension to her property. The roof line of the extension was lower than that of the rent of the house, and the tenant’s kitchen was above the landlord/s bathroom, the tenant’s bedroom was above the landlord’s garage and the tenant’s sitting room was above the landlord’s utility room. There was an alleyway, at ground floor only, between the two parts of the house.
The landlord’s mother had occupied the ground floor flat, and since her mother’s death the landlord had lived there continuously (apart from two month-long visits to America). However, the landlord still considered America, which was where her American husband lived, as her home and she intended to return there.
The tenant contended that the two flats were not parts of the same building, and reliance was placed on the separate entrances, the existence of the dividing alleyway at ground level and the fact that the landlord and tenant could live entirely separate lives despite being in close proximity.

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that the two flats formed part of the same building. The landlord occupied the flat as her residence despite intending to return to America. This did not prevent her being a resident landlord (within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977, which is very similar to that of the Housing Act 1988.)

Citation: Wolff v Waddington (1990) 22 H.L.R. 72