Moh and Others v Rimal Properties Ltd [2024]
[...]
Case Law Library
Rakusen v Jepsen [2023]
Rakusen v Jepsen [2021] EWCA Civ 1150
This case relates to a leasehold flat and a claim by the tenant that the owner and his partner were in control of an unlicensed HMO. The lessee owners vacated the flat and let it to an investment company. The company entered into licence agreements with Mr Jepsen and two others for occupation of individual rooms in the flat. Subsequently four people moved in which meant it was a house in multiple occupation (HMO) requiring a licence.
In 2019 the investment company's tenancy ended and the residents applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for a Rent Repayment Order against the owner (Rakusen) and his partner. It was argued by Rakusen that the order could only be made against the immediate landlord, namely, the investment company. The FTT dismissed the application and awarded against Rakusen and his partner. The FTT granted permission to appeal.
[...]Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Ors [2022]
Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Cooke [2020]
The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy and fell into rent arrears. The landlord served a section 8 notice on the tenant seeking possession pursuant to s8 of the Housing Act 1988. The notice was served in the correct form and was signed by Marie Miles, who was not a director of the landlord, but a person who acted as its property manager. Ms Miles signed the document as 'the landlord.' The tenant defended the claim for possession arguing that the notice was invalid as the landlord was a corporate landlord and the notice was required for a formal legal purpose and should have therefore been executed in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. The tenant also brought a counterclaim for an award under s214(4) Housing Act 2004 on the basis that the prescribed information certificate was required to be signed by the landlord in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 and it had only been signed by one director without a witness to the signature therefore in non compliance with the Companies Act 2006. This was the only argument about the prescribed information, all other information required to be included in the document had been provided.
Both the section 8 notice and the prescribed information certificate are required to be provided in the prescribed form or substantially to the same effect.
At first instance
[...]Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Ors [2022]
Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Cooke [2020]
The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy and fell into rent arrears. The landlord served a section 8 notice on the tenant seeking possession pursuant to s8 of the Housing Act 1988. The notice was served in the correct form and was signed by a property manager employed by the landlord. The tenant defended the claim for possession arguing that the notice was invalid as the landlord was a corporate landlord and the notice was required for a formal legal purpose and should have therefore been executed in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. The tenant also brought a counterclaim for an award under s214(4) Housing Act 2004 on the basis that the prescribed information certificate was required to be signed by the landlord in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 and it had only been signed by one director without a witness to the signature therefore in non compliance with the Companies Act 2006. This was the only argument about the prescribed information, all other information required to be included in the document had been provided.
Both the section 8 notice and the prescribed information certificate are required to be provided in the prescribed form or substantially to the same effect.
At first instance
[...]