In 1975 Lambeth Borough Council acquired a row of properties on Rushcroft Road in Brixton. The Council planned to demolish the properties and replace them with new housing. The plans ran into delays and in 1986 the Council decided to allow London and Quadrant, a housing association, to use the properties as temporary accommodation for people who were homeless.
In 1989 London and Quadrant agreed to let Mr Bruton live in one of the properties. The agreement was worded as follows:
"Occupation of Short-Life Accommodation at 2 Oval House, Rushcroft Road, SW2 on a temporary basis. "As has been explained to you, the above property is being offered to you by [the Trust] on a weekly Licence from 6 February 1989. The Trust has the property on licence from [the council] who acquired the property for development. . . and pending this development, it is being used to provide temporary housing accommodation. It is offered to you on the condition that you will vacate upon receiving reasonable notice from the Trust, which will not normally be less than four weeks. You understand and agree that while you are living in the property, you will allow access at all times during normal working hours to the staff of the Trust, the owners and agents for all purposes connected with the work of the Trust."After a number of years, Mr Bruton brought a claim against London and Quadrant, arguing that they had not met their obligations in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair the property. In reply, London and Quadrant argued that Mr Bruton was a licensee rather than a tenant and therefore they had no obligations to him vis a vis the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Where is it on the map?
At point G.
Mr Bruton won. The House of Lords held that even though the agreement had been described by both parties as a licence, it was in fact a tenancy and therefore London and Quadrant had an obligation to repair the property.
What's the principle of law?
A licence is a less secure form of tenure than a tenancy. It is often in a landlord's interests to describe an agreement as a licence rather than a tenancy. For example, if in the present case Mr Bruton had been a licensee, London and Quadrant would not have had an obligation to repair the property.
The case of Street v. Mountford  A.C. 809 had established that an agreement with the characteristics of a tenancy (such as exclusive possession of the premises) could be a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that both parties had described it as a licence.
In the present case, counsel for London and Quadrant argued that Street v. Mountford should be distinguished because the housing association had no power in law to create a tenancy with Mr Bruton. London and Quadrant were themselves only licensees of Lambeth Borough Council. The terms of their licence specifically forbade them from creating tenancies. However, the House of Lords were not persuaded by this argument. Lord Hobhouse said that London and Quadrant should have realised that their agreement with Mr Bruton was in fact a tenancy, regardless of how it was described, and that their agreements with Mr Bruton and others probably meant that they were in breach of their agreement with the Council.
What's it like now?
The properties never were demolished. But as a consequence of this House of Lords judgment, Lambeth Borough Council ended their arrangement with London and Quadrant. Lambeth then sought to evict Mr Bruton and the other residents from the properties. The evictions were themselves the subject of a House of Lords case (Kay and others v London Borough of Lambeth and others  UKHL 10).
The final residents of Rushcroft Road were evicted in 2013. This Daily Mail report provides a graphic account of the evictions.
Lambeth Council have since sold some of the properties on Rushcroft Road, and are redeveloping the rest as social housing.