In the case of Phillips v Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55, the Court of Appeal (CA) considered the question of whether services provided by a tenant could be considered “rent” under the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988).
Background
In January 2023, Mr and Mrs Phillips granted Ms Garroway a tenancy of a residential property on their estate known as The Lodge. The written agreement described itself as a tenancy and provided for a rolling six month term. Instead of a monetary rent, the agreement stated that “rent” consisted of a “minimum of two days’ work” per week on the estate between specified hours. No monetary value was attributed to that work in the agreement, and there was no mechanism for valuing it later.
Relations broke down. The Phillips served a notice to quit and sought possession. Ms Garroway resisted and argued that she occupied under an assured tenancy under the HA 1988. She said she had security of tenure and the Phillips’ could only evict her by relying on one of the statutory grounds under the HA 1988.
Legal issue
The central question was whether a tenancy requiring unquantified services still resulted in a tenancy “under which for the time being no rent is payable” for the purposes of Schedule 1 HA 1988. If no rent was payable, then the tenancy would fall outside the HA 1988.
The decision
The CA held that services performed by the tenant could not be considered “rent” under the HA 1988 because the parties had not agreed a monetary value for the services. Consequently, the tenancy was not an assured tenancy but a common law tenancy.
For the purposes of the HA 1988, “rent” means a payment of money, or goods or services to which the parties have attributed a monetary value or provided a mechanism for valuing it. It was determined that the court could not later place a value on those services.
The CA emphasised that Parliament deliberately adopted a narrow concept of rent in the HA 1988, consistent with earlier Rent Act authorities, and that extending protection to “rent in services” arrangements without valuation would create practical and statutory difficulties.
Implications
This decision is particularly relevant to the rural sector, where it is common for workers to occupy property belonging to their employer landlord. If accommodation is provided in return for work, but no monetary value is attributed to that work as rent, the occupier is unlikely to acquire assured tenancy rights.
Nevertheless, whenever dealing with agricultural workers it remains essential that the Form 9 Notice (or the new Form 24A notice post 1 May 2026) is served before any occupation to prevent an Assured Agricultural Occupancy from arising.
Conclusion
The Renters Rights Act 2025 will make it harder for landlords to obtain possession, revising both the mandatory and discretionary grounds for possession. In light of these changes, Phillips v Garraway may provide landlords with an option to keep a tenancy outside of the HA 1988 when the occupation is being provided in return for services (for which no monetary value has been provided).
