Think tank

The judge should have adjourned the possession claim at the time he or she made the money judgment.

This would mean that if the tenant failed to pay the judgment and costs you could ask the court to restore the possession claim for another hearing.

If the judge dismissed the possession claim altogether, then the only answer is to enforce the money judgment by an appropriate method of enforcement which could include, depending on the tenant's circumstances: sending the bailiffs round to enforce against goods, an attachment of earnings order or a granishee order against their bank account.

If you do take enforcement steps, the judgement will be registered on the county court register and the tenant's ability to get credit will be affected in the future.

You could therefore write to the tenant warning them of this before going back to court – it might persuade him or her to pay up.
Nick Billingham: partner, Devonshires

Just how did you end up in court with such small arrears? You need to review your processes because, while pursuing arrears vigorously is sensible, ending up in court with such a small amount owed is not.

I did hear anecdotally about one registered social landlord that was told by a county court judge that applying for possession on such small arrears was a breach of the Human Rights Act.

That's probably not a correct view of the law but it is difficult to justify court proceedings for such a small sum, simply on grounds of the cost of staff time. Almost anything you do to recover this is probably going to cost you more than it is worth paying.

Have a look at the leaflet I Have a Judgment but the Defendant Hasn't Paid – What do I do? on the court service website www.courtservice.gov.uk, which sets out all your options.

But as the leaflet says, all the options involve fees. Although these will be added to the debt, so if your tenant pays up, you do get them back, you need to think whether it is worth it.
Catherine Hand, Partner at solicitor Jenkins & Hand

A licence to let?
I am interested in granting short-life licences on some of my properties, but I'm confused. Aren't they effectively just tenancies? Why would a licence be better than a tenancy anyway?

Landlords have frequently found it to be in their interests to provide accommodation on the basis of a licence rather than a lease. The conventional wisdom is that it is easier to terminate a licence.

The courts have frequently addressed the issue of what distinguishes a licence from a lease, the landmark decision being Street v Mountford, decided by the House of Lords in 1985.

If the three factors of exclusive possession, a fixed or periodic term and payment of a premium or rent are involved, it is most likely that there will be a tenancy.

It is possible that even with these three factors a court might come to a different view. For example, there is some case law indicating that rent is not an essential to the creation of a lease.

Nevertheless, the courts have shown their willingness to look to the reality of relationships between landlords and tenants.

If the three key ingredients set out in Street v Mountford are present, the courts will most likely say that a tenancy exists notwithstanding the parties might have called the arrangement a licence.
Richard Kemp, Executive member for housing & neighbourhood services in the Liverpool cabinet