Home Case Law Library Page 4

Case Law Library

Caridon Property Ltd v Monty Shooltz. Central London County Court (2018)

Caridon Property Ltd v Monty Shooltz. Central London County Court, 2nd February 2018

The landlord served a section 21 notice on the tenant but it was argued that as the gas safety certificate was not provided to the tenant before the tenant took up occupation of the property the section 21 notice was invalid.  The landlord had not served the certificate prior to occupation but argued that he had provided the tenant with a copy of the gas safety certificate 11 months after the start of the tenancy.  DJ Bloom found that the landlord had breached Regulation 36(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 which made the s21 notice invalid.  The landlord appealed and

[...]

View »

Wood v Arkley (2018)

[...]

View »

Barrow & Anoe v Kazim & Ors [2018]

Barrow & Anoe v Kazim & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2414, 31 October 2018

Athena Investments Ltd were granted a lease of a property which contained a number of flats.  The lease gave permission for residential subletting. The flats were sublet by Athena on Assured Shorthold Tenancies (AST) for a fixed term of 28 weeks and statutory periodic thereafter.  The property was sold to Kazim and Others (the new owners/head landlord) who served notice on Athena seeking possession on 19th March 2016.  Kazim and Others also served section 21 notices on the sub-tenants.

Under section 18 of the Housing Act 988, once the notice to quit on served on Athena had expired, the sub-tenants became the direct AST tenants of Kazim and Others.  Kazim issued proceedings against the sub-tenants based on the previously served section 21 notices.  The proceedings were defended by two of the tenants, Mr Barrow and Ms Amey.  The Judge found that 'if you are the landlord of the superior tenant, you must be entitled to serve a notice to quit on the inferior tenant at the same time' and granted possession.  The case was appealed and the Judge stated

[...]

View »

Assured Property Service Ltd v Ooo, Edmonton County Court (2017)

Assured Property Service Ltd v Ooo, Edmonton County Court 30th June 2017

The tenant, Ms Ooo, had an Assured Shorthold Tenancy which granted after 1st October 2015.  The landlord served a section 21 notice on the tenant and the county court made a possession order under the accelerated possession procedure without a hearing.  However, the tenant made an application to set aside the order on the basis that no gas safety certificate had been provided at the outset of the tenancy or subsequently thereafter.  The landlord disputed that the tenant had never received a gas safety certificate as he argued that there had been a subsequent inspection and a certificate provided.

The District Judge held that 

[...]

View »

Coppard v Barrington (2017)

Coppard v Barrington (2017), Basingstoke County Court 

The landlord, Mrs Coppard, granted an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to joint tenants Carl Barrington and another.  A deposit of £1,200 was paid and there was also a guarantor Mrs Barrington.  The landlord protected the deposit wtihin 30 days and also provided the tenant with prescribed information within 30 days as required by section 213(6) of the Housing Act 2004.  A copy of the prescribed information was not served on the guarantor.

The landlord subsequently served a section 21 notice on the tenant.  The tenant vacated the property leaving £3,167 in rent arrears.  As the debt was not paid the landlord took the guarantor to court but

[...]

View »

Camelot Property Management v Greg Roynon (2017)

Camelot Property Management Ltd and Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Greg Roynon (2017)

Bristol County Court, 24 February 2017

Bristol City Council engaged the services of Camelot Property Management Ltd to place 'guardians' in a former local authority care home. Mr Roynon, one of the guardians, had a written licence and paid a rent below the market rent.  Mr Roynon occupied two rooms which only he had access to.  He also had use of other facilities such as a communal kitchen and bathroom.  When the management company served notice on Mr Roynon he refused to leave the property claiming that he was a tenant paying to live in a shared house.

As set out in Street v Mountford [1985] the court will look beyond what the agreement is labelled as and take into account the occupation arrangement.  The court found:

[...]

View »

Lutman v Ashford Borough Council (2017)

Lutman v Ashford Borough Council (2017)

Canterbury County Court, 5th October 2017

Mrs Lutman (the Tenant) was taken to hospital in 2012 due to dementia. Mr Lutman continued to reside at the property until 2013 when he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.  Mrs Lutman was transferred to a care home whild Mr Lutman was in prison but the rent and bills continued to be paid from a joint account.  In October 2013 the Council sent an officer to the care home to get Mrs Lutman to sign a document of surrender.

Mr Lutman was released from prison in November 2013 and found the locks had been changed.  The Council stated that they were entitled to possession of the property as Mrs Lutman was not living at the property and Mr Lutman was in prison.  Mr Lutman made a claim against the council for unlawful eviction and the council defended the case.  

[...]

View »

Assured Property Service Ltd v Ooo, County Court (2017)

Assured Property Service Ltd v Ooo, Edmonton County Court 30th June 2017

The tenant, Ms Ooo, had an Assured Shorthold Tenancy which granted after 1st October 2015.  The landlord served a section 21 notice on the tenant and the county court made a possession order under the accelerated possession procedure without a hearing.  However, the tenant made an application to set aside the order on the basis that no gas safety certificate had been provided at the outset of the tenancy or subsequently thereafter.  The landlord disputed that the tenant had never received a gas safety certificate as he argued that there had been a subsequent inspection and a certificate provided.

The District Judge held that 

[...]

View »

Leeds City Council v Broadley [2016]

Leeds City Council v Broadley [2016] EWCA

Mr Broadley, the landlord, let out a number of properties under Assured Shorthold Tenancies which were granted for a six or twelve month term and thereafter continuing on a monthly basis.  The tenancy could be terminated by either party giving one month's notice and the tenant was liable to pay council tax for the property during the tenancy.

Leeds City Council pursued the landlord for council tax owing on five properties where the tenant had left the property without notice as they argued that a fixed term tenancy followed by a periodic tenancy created two tenancies and conflicted with the rule that the periodic tenancies must be of a certain duration.  The landlord argued that as the tenancies continued until either notice was given in accordance with the tenancy agreement or the property was relet he was not liable for the council tax.  The periodic tenancies were a continuation of the fixed term and not a new tenancy.

Section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA 1992)sets out the criteria for liability of council tax and the argument here was whether the tenants had a material interest in the properties as a 'leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more.'

The First-tier Tribunal held 

[...]

View »

Stewart and others v Watts [2016] EWCA Civ 1247

Stewart and others v Watts [2016] EWCA Civ 1247

Ashtead United Charity owned three properties which contained 14 residential flats.  Mrs Watts retned one of the flats and occupied it pursuant to a letter of appointment.  The letter stated that Mrs Watts was appointed as a beneficiary of the Charity and that a monthly rent was payable and made various references to 'the tenancy.'

The letter also set out regulations that applied to residents including that residents nor any relation of the resident would be a tenant of the charity or have any legal interest in the property.  In August 2014 the trustees of the charity served a notice to quit on Mrs Watts and possession proceedings were issued in May 2015.  The court was required to decided the basis on which Mrs Watts occupied the flat.  

[...]

View »

Bali v Manaquel Company Limited 2016, County Court

Bali v Manaquel Company Limited, County Court at Central London, 15th April 2016

Manaquel gave Bali an assured shorthold tenancy.  Bali paid a deposit which was protected in the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) scheme. Manaquel later served a section 21 notice on Bali and started possession proceedings.  Bali claimed that the Manaquel had not complied with the initial deposit protection requirements and in the first intance the judge held that the landlord had complied and possession was granted.

Bali appealed and on appeal the same point was raised.  It was argued that the notice was invalid because the landlord had not provided the tenant with the Deposit Protection Service leaflet as required by the legilsation. The landlord had included a printout of the Deposit Protection Service's (The DPS) terms and conditions but not a leaflet. 

The Judge held

[...]

View »

Kumarasamy v Edwards [2016]

Edwards v Kumarasamy [2015] EWCA Civ 20

Mr Edwards rented a second floor flat from Mr Kumarasamy who was the leaseholder of the flat. Mr Kumarasamy did not own any other part of the property but his lease granted him the right "to use on foot the entrance hall, lift and staircases giving access to the flat; the right to use an access road and parking space and the right to use the Bin Store (which is part of the communal areas as defined) and other facilities provided by the landlord.  Regulations forming part of the lease in fact require all domestic rubbish to be placed in the Bin Store."

The freeholders covenanted under the lease to keep the communal areas in good and substantial repair and to keep the passageways and footpaths forming part of the building in good order and condition.  The lease also included a clause which limited the freeholder's liability for any defect unless Mr Kumarasamy had given notice of the defect and the freeholder had been given reasonable time to carry out the repairs.

Whilst Mr Edwards was taking the rubbish out to the Bin Store he tripped over an uneven paving stone on the pathway between the front door of the block of flats and the communal bins in the car park.  Mr Edwards injured his knee.  Mr Edwards had not given prior notice to Mr Kumarasamy of the uneven paving stone and Mr Kumarasamy has not given prior notice to the freeholder either.  The pathway was the main access to the block of flats.  Mr Edwards claimed that Mr Kumarasamy was responsible for the defect under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The District Judge found that the path was part of the exterior and structure of the flat and did therefore come under Section 11 and damages were awarded to Mr Edwards, however on appeal the Circuit Judge found it was not part of the structure and exterior.  Mr Edwards had put forward a new argument that Mr Kumarasamy was liable for the path under section 11 (1A) but the Circuit Judge decided that there had not been any notice of the defect so there could be not liability.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal:

[...]

View »