Marath and another v MacGillivray (1996)

Rent arrears due to a delay in the payment of housing benefit does not affect the viability of a section 8 notice for possession.

The tenant of a flat in London had a shorthold tenancy of six months from January 1994. In March 1995 the landlords, who lived in Florida, obtained a possession order. The order was made on the grounds of more than three moths rent arrears and a breach of a clause of the tenancy agreement (failure to repair and/or to occupy in a careful and tenant-like manner). The tenant appealed, on three grounds:
-    whether a valid notice under s. 8 Housing Act 1988 had been served on the tenant, in the prescribed form, informing him of the landlords’ intention to take possession proceedings on the grounds of three months rent arrears;
-    whether the tenant had been served with a valid notice under s. 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, providing him with the landlords’ address in England or Wales for the service of notices, and
-    whether the landlords were estopped from relying on  the rent arrears as a ground for the possession order.

HELD: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The purported s. 8 notice was not compliant with statutory requirements, as insufficient details of the rent arrears had been given to the tenant. However, if the s. 8 notice made it clear to the tenant that the landlord was alleging that more than three months’ rent arrears was due at the end of the notice and there was a method enabling the tenant to ascertain the amount that was alleged to be due, this would be sufficient.
It was quite clear that the tenant was alleged to be over three months in rent arrears, and information was given to enable a calculation to be made of how much was due. A notice served by the landlords’ son as ‘acting agent’ included his name and address, and this therefore satisfied s. 48 as it provided the information required.
It was said that problems with the administration of housing benefit are not a defence to proceedings based on ground 8. The court ordered possession even though the tenants were owed housing benefit which would substantially reduce the arrears.


Citation: Marath and another v MacGillivray (1996) 28 HLR 484