Mountain v Hastings [1993]

A s. 8 notice was defective as the ground on which the landlord was seeking possession did not fully set out the substance of the ground, and this meant that the notice did not meet the purpose of the legislation.

The tenant held a monthly periodic assured tenancy of a flat. The landlord served notice purporting to be a s. 8 notice seeking possession, stating that he intended to seek possession on six grounds of the grounds provided by the Housing Act 1988. On a separate document, the landlord stated ‘the landlord intends to seek possession … Ground 8. At least three months rent is unpair’. In proceedings for possession, the landlord claimed possession of the flat, plus arrears of rent and mesne profits (money that a landlord can claim from a tenant who continues to occupy property after his tenancy ends, the amount being equivalent to the current market rent of the property). At the hearing, the tenant’s counsel accepted that there was a case made out under ground 8 because the tenant had not paid the rent, but it was contended that the state of the premises entitled her to a reduction of the rent. It was said that this should be set off against the rent arrears.
The county court judge made an order for possession in 28 days.

The tenant appealed, contending that the notice served by the landlord did not comply with s. 8 as the notice did not provide the full text of each ground for possession she was relying on, and the notice was not in the prescribed form. It was argued that due to this the judge did not have jurisdiction to try the application for possession, and the judge had also improperly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment in order to permit the tenant to raise her claims to a set-off against the rent. The landlord contended that as the tenant had not raised the issue of the validity of the notice at the hearing, she could not raise the issue on appeal.

On appeal:
HELD:The Court of Appeal allowed the tenant’s appeal; the s. 8 notice was defective because it did not specify the details of one of the grounds for possession which was relied on. The ground may be set out in the notice in different words to those used in the Schedule ot the Act where they are provided, but the words used must fully set out the substance of the ground. The notice must achieve the purpose of the legislation, which is to give to the tenant the information that the provision requires them to be given, in order to enable the tenant to consider what they should do and to do that which will best protect them against the loss of their home.
The tenant had not been prevented from raising the issue of the invalidity of the notice, as the court has a discretion to allow a party to raise a point on appeal which hads not been raised in the court in below. The facts relevant to the validity of the notice were before the court.

Citation: Mountain v Hastings (1993) 25 HLR 427