Rugby Borough Council v Mokhtar Mohammad Pouri (2013)
[...]
Case Law Library
Voysey v Ellas (2013)
Voysey v Ellas (2013)
Croydon County Court
The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy for which they paid rent of £1,050 per month. The tenant lived at the property with their adult daughter and son, the son is registered as blind. The boiler at the property was defective for a period of three and a half months during which time there was no heating or hot water. The tenant had to fill the bath with saucepans of boiling water.
There was also a minor persistent leak in the conservatory for twenty nine months and defective drainage in the bathroom for two years.
[...]R v Jay Allen and Razwan Mohammed [2013]
R v Jay Allen and Razwan Mohammed [2013] EWCA Crim
The landlords, Jay Allen and Razwan Mohammed rented a property to Chris Blades and later forced Mr Blades to leave the property without obtaining a possession order after he had run up £900 of rent arrears.
[...]Shah v Croydon London Borough Council [2013]
Shah v Croydon London Borough Council [2013] EWHC 3657 (Admin)
Mr Shah owned a property which he rented to two tenants. The council tax was in arrears of fourteen months. The council brought a claim against Mr Shah on the basis that the property was a house in multiple occupation and Mr Shah was therefore responsible for the council tax. The magistrates found that
[...]Naz v Redbridge LBC [2013]
Naz v Redbridge LBC [2013] High Court
Mr Naz let a property to joint tenants. The council alleged that the property had been let to multiple tenants as a House in Multiple Occupation and billed the landlord for the council tax as the liability rested with the landlord. The landlord appealed to a valuation tribunal claiming that the whole property had been subject to a joint tenancy at the relevant time, he produced a written tenancy agreement supporting this.
The tribunal
[...]Read v Notting Hill Housing Trust (2013)
Read v Notting Hill Housing Trust (2013)
Bow County Court
The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy of a two bedroom ground floor flat and paid £289 per week in rent. A few months after moving into the property the tenant informed the landlord that rats were getting into the property and also reported the matter to the Council Environmental Health Officer. The entrance was through holes in the floorboards. There was also rising damp at the property and a boiler which only produced hot water intermittently. The tenant was offered alternative accommodation about a year after reporting the rat problem. One of the tenant's children had gone to stay with the grandmother because of the rat problem.
[...]Vaughan v MLS Properties Ltd (2013)
Vaughan v MLS Properties Ltd (2013)
Edmonton County Court
The tenant rented a two bedroom first floor flat in a block in June 2009 for £975 per month. From November 2009 there were various defects at the property including; uneven floorboards with exposed nails and an unsafe fire escape from the start of the tenancy, defective gas central heating, dampness and water penetration in most rooms, exacerbating condensation and mould, defective plaster and problems with the electric installation.
Following works carried out by the landlord's contractors the property had defective double glazed windows in one bedroom and the living room, and defective tiling in the bathroom and WC.
From September 2012, building works and scaffolding for the erection of a new storey immediately above the property resulted in
[...]Spencer v Taylor [2013]
Spencer v Taylor 2013 EWCA Civ 1600
Mr Spencer granted an assured shorthold tenancy to a Miss Taylor on 6th February 2006 of a property in Chesterfield. The tenancy was granted for an initial fixed term of six months. The rent was paid weekly and according to the tenancy agreement, the first payment became due on the first day of the tenancy (a Monday) and weekly thereafter. The fixed term tenancy expired on Saturday 5 Aug 2006, and was never renewed. By virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act, a periodic tenancy arose immediately thereafter under which the rental periods were also weekly. Under the periodic tenancy, the court calculated that these periods would end on a Sunday presumably because they were linked to the rent payment day
being Monday.
Some time later, Mr Spencer gave notice requiring possession of the property.
[...]Spencer v Taylor [2013]
Spencer v Taylor [2013] EWCA
Mr Spencer granted an assured shorthold tenancy to a Miss Taylor on 6th February 2006 of a property in Chesterfield. The tenancy was granted for an initial fixed term of six months. The rent was paid weekly and according to the tenancy agreement, the first payment became due on the first day of the tenancy (a Monday) and weekly thereafter. The fixed term tenancy expired on Saturday 5 Aug 2006, and was never renewed. By virtue of section 5 of the Housing Act, a periodic tenancy arose immediately thereafter under which the rental periods were also weekly. Under the periodic tenancy, the court calculated that these periods would end on a Sunday presumably because they were linked to the rent payment day
being Monday.
Some time later, Mr Spencer give notice requiring possession of the property. The notice was in a standard printed form and stated that Mr Spencer required possession of the dwelling house, giving its address and then supplied the date as ‘(a) after 01/01/2012’ (the date being inserted into the blank box on the form supplied for this purpose). Following the box containing the date, were the words:
“Or (b) at the end of your period of tenancy which will end next after the expiration of two months from the service upon you of this notice.”
So effectively, the section 21 notice contained what is commonly known as a ‘saving clause’ which allows the notice to remain valid even if the landlord has made a mistake in calculating the original date on the form.
Arguments:
The landlord relied on his completed notice and saving clause to apply to the court for possession of the property. The tenant argued that the date on the notice was wrong as it did not expire on the last day of a period of the tenancy which should have been on a Sunday. The tenant also argued the section 21(4) notice was invalid on the basis that the combination of the 1 January 2012 date and the saving provision made the notice uncertain as it provided for two different dates.
Decision:
[...]Paratus AMC Ltd v Fosuhene [2013]
Paratus AMC Ltd v Fosuhene [2013] EWCA Civ 827
The borrower let a property without the lender's consent and defaulted on loan. The tenant paid rent directly to the mortgage company and when the lender started proceedings for possession the tenant claimed that the payments to the lender made the tenancy binding on the lender. There was nothing to connect those payments to the occupier of the property, but it was claimed that the lender's agent was aware that the property was let following their visit to the property.
The court
[...]Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues [2013]
Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues 2013
The tenant was granted a one year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy in January 2007 and a tenancy deposit was taken. As the fixed term tenancy was granted prior to the introduction of the tenancy deposit legislation the deposit was not required to be protected in one of the statutory schemes at this time. In January 2008 the fixed term tenancy expired and the tenant remained in occupation under a statutory periodic tenancy.
The landlord later sought possession using a Section 21 notice in June 2011. However, the tenant claimed that the Section 21 notice was invalid as the deposit had not been protected in accordance with the tenancy deposit legislation under the Housing Act 2004 when the tenancy became statutory periodic.
The Court of Appeal held
[...]Johnson & Ors v Anne Alexander Old [2013]
Johnson & Ors v Anne Alexander Old [2013] EWCA 415
The landlord let a property to Mrs Old on 1st May 2009 and due to referencing problems the rent was paid for the first six months. After two renewals the tenancy then ran statutory periodic.
The tenant fell into rent arrears and the agent served a Section 21 notice on the tenant seeking possession of the property. Upon expiry of the notice court proceedings were commenced. The tenant claimed that on the basis that five out of six months of the rent paid was a deposit which had not been protected therefore making the section 21 notice invalid.
The landlord had made some clumsy amendments to the tenancy agreement and it was uncertain as to whether the rent in advance was a deposit or not.
The court held
[...]