Comment: Property guardians live in legal limbo despite new law Published on: 10 April 2019 Writing for The Conversation, Derek Whayman discusses how a new law giving tenants the right to demand a basic standard of accommodation remains unclear for property guardians. A guardianship property in London. , , In the midst of England鈥檚 housing crisis, when many young people face in major cities, alternative forms of accommodation have emerged. is one example, where disused buildings are converted into residential quarters, and let out temporarily until the owners make further plans for the buildings. The arrangement helps keep squatters out, offers young people more affordable rent and allows the owners to the imposed on empty buildings. It might sound like a win-win situation for tenants and building owners, but in a sellers鈥� market, where tenants are easy to find, landlords can be less concerned with keeping accommodation in good repair. to reports of hazardous conditions the UK government passed which gives tenants in England and Wales the right to demand a basic standard of accommodation. This builds on tenants鈥� existing rights, which include and . Read more: Yet the law for property guardians remains unclear: if they wanted to take their landlord to court to enforce basic repairs under the new law, a judge could rule that they are not tenants at all 鈥� merely licensees, which would leave them without legal protection. This has happened already: while in one 2017 case a property guardian was , in another 2018 case to be a licensee. In each case, the lower court judges took different positions on how to interpret the law. If property guardians find themselves needing to appeal a judge鈥檚 ruling, in order to secure repairs for their home, they would to a higher court. This raises two difficult issues: for one thing, should it be the guardians鈥� job to take an active role in settling the law in the appeal courts, rather than leaving it to parliament 鈥� and for another, how should such challenges be funded? Review overdue The law is conventionally divided into lawyers鈥� law (such as contract law) and public interest law (such as family law and criminal law). Unelected appeal judges can legitimately change lawyers鈥� law, because its subject matter is less politically sensitive. But public interest law is for elected politicians to change. When guardians try to enforce repairs against landlords, the case will be governed by both models: the judges decide who is a tenant, while parliament decides on what protections tenants are offered. Conventionally, this is considered legitimate, because if parliament does not like a court鈥檚 decision, it can change the law afterwards. Yet the law determining whether a resident is a tenant was settled the 1970s and 1980s, when . Back then, tenants also benefited from and . Now the context has changed, it鈥檚 not surprising that the law needs to be reviewed. The UK鈥檚 Supreme Court in London. The problem is that taking a case to the or the is expensive, and disproportionately so if one case is considered on its own. Depending on its complexity, by the time a case reaches even the county court costs can reach . Appeals will cost more still. Protecting public interest When guardians take landlords to court over tenants鈥� rights, they鈥檙e not just deciding an individual case 鈥� they鈥檙e also setting a precedent for future cases, which helps to settle what the law actually means. Because of this, such cases are in the wider public interest. The legal aid system has a facility to provide extra funding for such cases 鈥� even to appeal. If members of the public are to be co-opted in settling the law for the public benefit, they should be funded from the public purse. If funding is denied, it doesn鈥檛 just affect those bringing the case 鈥� it has an impact on the legal system itself, which becomes paralysed and unable to deal with more modern circumstances. And if the law is uncertain, the wider public are at a disadvantage too, because they will not know their rights. There are nonetheless barriers to this process. Property guardian companies may prefer to settle, rather than risk getting a firm ruling that their residents are tenants, which may undermine their business model. Tenants might also prefer to avoid the stress of litigation and simply decide to find somewhere else to live. But the biggest barrier is the lack of state funding. In an age of austerity, which has seen , the may be unwilling to fund such cases to appeal. But failing to fund public interest litigation because of is shortsighted and will cost the public in the long run. , Lecturer in Law, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 historians mark General Strike centenary To mark the 100th anniversary of the British General Strike and miners鈥� lock-out of 1926, historians at 缅北禁地 are organising a series of events on its enduring legacy. published on: 16 April 2026 Comment: NCP is in administration Writing for The Conversation, Erwei (David) Xiang discusses how some big companies like NCP are so dependent on debt that they can鈥檛 adjust to change. published on: 16 April 2026 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}