Website Cookie Policy

We use cookies to give you the best possible online experience. If you continue, we’ll assume you are happy for your web browser to receive all cookies from our website.
See our cookie policy for more information.

Practice Areas

More Information

thepartners@wrigleys.co.uk

Leeds: 0113 244 6100

Sheffield: 0114 267 5588

FOLLOW WRIGLEYS:

Send us an enquiry
Close

Important case for almshouse charities

16 December 2016

The Court of Appeal confirms the status of almshouse residents

The Court of Appeal has confirmed again that residents of almshouses occupy as licensees and not as tenants. The residents therefore do not obtain rights of security of tenure.

This decision is not surprising considering the legal status has been clear for years, albeit this is not well known or understood outside this specialist sector; but is nevertheless reassuring for almshouse providers.

Further reading

Case Report Watts v Stewart and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1247


If you would like to discuss any aspect of this article further, please contact our Almshouse Team or Tim Wrigley on 0113 244 6100. 

You can also keep up to date by following Wrigleys Solicitors on LinkedIn.

The information in this article is necessarily of a general nature. The law stated is correct at the date (stated above) this article was first posted to our website.

Specific advice should be sought for specific situations. If you have any queries or need any legal advice please feel free to contact Wrigleys Solicitors

Tim Wrigley View Biography

Tim Wrigley

Partner
Leeds

26 Nov 2025
Janice Jefferies Headshot

Unpacking the social care means test

Disability related expenditure – what is it and why is it important?

25 Nov 2025
Donna Radcliffe Headshot

What goes up, might come down; the end of upwards only rent reviews?

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill could bring about a major change for commercial lettings.

24 Nov 2025
Sue King Headshot

Whistleblowing claims: the detriment of dismissal

Liability for dismissal detriment does not extend to the line manager who did not dismiss.