Commercial premises are not houses

In what may be seen as a sensible outcome of a long running debate, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not reasonable to refer to commercial premises as “houses” for the purposes of the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Supreme Court has determined that a building that may well have been originally built as, designed as, and once used as a house, but which was now wholly used for office accommodation was, whatever its original design or current appearance, not a house reasonably so called for the purposes of enfranchisement under that Act. Further, a building that was residential, but was used as a “self-catering hotel” was also not “a house reasonably so called” within the meaning of the Act. Parliament had not intended such commercial owners and occupiers to have rights given to tenants of houses to enfranchise. The Court’s decision can be seen at Day v Hosebay Limited; Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Lexgorge Limited [2012] UKSC 41.