Brewer and another v Andrews and another (1998)

Tenants rented an eight bedroom house in Newquay on an assured shorthold tenancy in May 1993. The property had been used a guest house previously, but the agreement contained a clause that limited its use to a single private dwelling. The tenants, however, used the property as a guest house. In September 1994 the tenants stopped paying rent as they were aggrieved about certain items of disrepair. The landlords gave two months notice that they required possession, and then went on to to issue proceedings for possession and recovery of rent arrears of £3,150. The tenants claimed that their tenancy was a business tenancy rather than a residential tenancy.  Secondly, if that failed, they also contended that their tenancy was an assured and not an assured shorthold tenancy because of defects in the notice. The dates on the notice were incorrect and the old form of notice had been used.

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that possession was correctly awarded. Firstly, the tenants could not deny that the house was let on an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the original tenancy agreement was clear to all parties and the surrounding circumstances, such as the fact that the property had been previously used as a guest house, would only be relevant where the purpose of the tenancy was not clear. The restriction contained in the lease made it impossible to infer an intention to let for business purposes from the history and setting of the premises, the fact that it was rated as a business premises or the presence of so many bedrooms.
The Court also considered that the defects in the notice did not render it invalid.  The wrong date was an obvious clerical error (and differed to the defect in Panayi v Roberts where the error was much more significant). The omission of the notes on council tax was in no way detrimental to these tenants and could therefore be ignored.

This decision demonstrates a willingness by the court to overlook technical defects, especially where the merits of the case lie with the landlord.

Citation: Brewer and another v Andrews and another (1998) 30 HLR 203