Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh [1999]

A s. 21 notice was held also to have been valid as a s. 48 notice, as it provided the tenant with the landlord’s name and an address at which notices could be served.

A landlord granted a tenancy of a flat to a tenant, believing it to be an assured shorthold tenancy. When he wanted to terminate the tenancy, the landlord therefore served a s. 21 notice with a view to using the accelerated procedure provided for by s. 21 to recover possession on the termination of the tenancy. The s. 21 notice recorded the landlord’s name and the name and address of her solicitors, who were described as the ‘landlord’s agent’. The landlord later invoked the accelerated procedure by serving a county court application (s. 21 application), in which the name and address of the same solicitors was inserted into a printed box with the cation ‘for service and payment’. The landlord obtained a possession order, but the tenant successfully applied for a rehearing. The s. 21 application was later consolidated with new proceedings brought by the landlord. This claim was founded on Ground 2 of statutory grounds for possession and alleged that the tenant had persistently delayed paying rent ‘which has become lawfully due’. At the rehearing, the s. 21 was dismissed for grounds not taken further on appeal, but the ground 2 claim succeeded,as the judge found a long history of inexcusable failure to pay rent.

The tenant appeal on the grounds that, despite her rent arrears, no rent had become ‘lawfully du4’ at the material time, due to s. 48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. s. 48 means that rent that is otherwise due is deemed not to be due at any time before the landlord has furnished the tenant (by notice) with an address at which notices may be served by the tenant. The landlord replied that the requirements of s. 48 had been satisfied by the s. 21 notice, as well as by the s. 21 application (as these provided the address of the landlord’s solicitor/agent).

On appeal:
HELD:     The Court of Appeal held that the s. 21 notice complied with s. 48 of the 1987 Act, as so long as the tenant was provided with the landlord’s name and an address on England or Wales, it did not need to be stated that the address was a place to which notices could be sen. It could not be argued that the notice was not effective in relation to s. 21 because it had been served in respect of a different provision (s. 48). However, without the s. 21 notice the s. 21 application did not satisfy s. 48, as the caption in the box was a significant limitation or qualification.


Citation: Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh (2000) 32 HLR 316