Van-Herpen v Green & Green 2023
[...]
Possession
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
[...]Ratcliffe & Ratcliffe v Patterson & Porter, Luton County Court 2020
Ratcliffe & Ratcliffe v Patterson & Porter, Luton County Court 2020
The tenant, Ms Patterson, had an assured shorthold tenancy and a tenancy deposit of £950 was paid and protected in one of the schemes. The tenant fell into rent arrears. The landlord served a section 8 notice under grounds 8,10 and 11 of the Housing Act 1988 following which possession proceedings were issued. The tenant counterclaimed stating, amongst other issues, that the section 8 notice was invalid and tenancy deposit requirements had not been met.
The section 8 notice was claimed by the tenant to be invalid because the notice did not include the name and address of the landlord and this was required as the section 8 notice was a demand for rent under s47 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It was also claimed that the notice had not been signed correctly as it was signed by the agent (a limited company) and should therefore have been signed in accordance with section 44 Companies Act 2006.
[...]Prempeh v Lakhay (2020)
Prempeh v Lakhany (2020) EWCA Civ 1422
In this case the tenants, Miss Baker and Miss Prempeh, rented a property in London from Miss Lakhany (the landlord). An agreement was entered into on 16th December 2016 and a deposit was paid. Subsequently Miss Baker left the property and Miss Prempeh maintained that there was then a further agreement dated 17th December 2017 and she was then the sole tenant of the property. The tenant fell into rent arrears and a section 8 notice was served specifying grounds 8, 10 and 11. At the first hearing it was argued that the second tenancy agreement which showed the landlord as the company O'Sullivan was a forgery. The issues in question at the hearing were which tenancy agreement was the correct one and whether the section 8 notice was invalid because it did not comply with section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in that a rent demand must include the landlord's address.
The section 8 notice was signed by the landlord's agent and the notice gave the name, address and telephone number of the landlord's agent. The landlord's name and address was not included in the section 8 notice. The covering letter sent with the section 8 notice stated that the agent acted for the landlord. The question raised on appeal was whether a section 8 notice is a rent demand and whether it must contain the landlord's name and address.
[...]Trecarrel House Limited v Rouncefield [2020]
Trecarrel House Limited v Rouncefield 2020 EWCA Civ 760
In this case the tenancy was an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) of a self-contained flat in a domestic property which was granted on 13th February 2019. The heating and hot water were provided by a boiler outside of the flat. A gas safety certificate had not been issued or displayed before the start of the tenancy but the landlord provided the tenant with one prior to service of the section 21 notice on 1st May 2018.
The issues in this case revisit those which were considered by HHJ Luba QC in the case of Caridon Property Ltd v Monty Shooltz as to whether the landlord breached the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (GSR 1998) and the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015 which prevented him from relying on the section 21 notice.
At the first hearing it was found that
[...]Caridon Property Ltd v Monty Shooltz. Cent. London County Ct (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
[...]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
[...]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
[...]Masish, R v Yousaf [2014]
Masih, R v Yousaf [2014] EWCA Civ 234
The tenant rented a property on an assured shorthold tenancy for £560 per month. The landlord claimed he had not received rent for February, March or April 2012 but he had recieved the tenant's housing benefit direct from the council in May 2012 but this was in the sum of £392 leaving a shortfall in the rent. The landlord therefore served a section 8 notice on the tenant seeking possession of the property on mandatory ground 8 and a possession order was granted. However, the tenant applied to set aside the possession order on the basis that the section notice was not in the proper form. The tenant argued that the section 8 notice did not comply with section 8(2) of the Housing Act 1988 as it did not specify the ground that was being relied on.
Section 8(2) states: "The court shall not make an order for possession on any of the grounds in Schedule 2 to this Act unless that ground and particulars of it are specified in the notice under this section; but the grounds specified in such a notice may be altered or added to with the leave of the court."
The notice served on the tenant stated:
[...]