Notice to terminate tenancy – Notice omitting instructions to act quickly and notes from form – Whether notice invalid – Whether notice substantially to like effect – Whether departure from prescribed form immaterial
In July 1996 the defendant landlord served notices under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to terminate the plaintiffs’ tenancy of the first floor of premises situated at 76 Grove Park Road, London W4 (the premises). Those served with the notices did not respond because they had already been advised that the notices were not valid. On January 27 1997 the defendant entered the premises. The next day the plaintiffs issued originating motions seeking to be restored to possession. The judge ordered the defendant, inter alia, not to interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment and occupation of the premises and held that the section 25 notices were defective. He gave leave to appeal regarding the effect on the validity of the section 25 notice of the decision in Morris v Patel [1987] 1 EGLR 75. The defendant contended on appeal that, although the notices were not given in the prescribed form, they were valid notices being in a form “substantially to the like effect” for the purposes of the 1954 Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations 1983, as amended (1983/133). The plaintiff argued that all the relevant prescribed information had not been included in the notice, the omissions and errors were not “minor”, and the tenant did not have all the requisite information to inform him of his tenant’s rights and obligations.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. There were several respects in which the notices had differed from the prescribed form , including the omission of the “act quickly box” and notes 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Where the actual form prescribed by the regulations had not been used, the comparison to be made was between the notices served and the form prescribed. Once the differences had been ascertained, the decision to be made was whether the substance of the information required had been provided. The substance was that which informed the recipient of his rights and obligations under the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 66(2) of the 1954 Act provided that the form was to include an explanation of the relevant provisions of the Act “requisite for informing (the tenants) of their rights and obligations”. Therefore differences were only to be disregarded when the information given was in substance as effective as that given in the actual form. Irrelevant matter could be omitted where the notice was nevertheless “substantially to the like effect”. A notice omitting the “act quickly box” could not be said to be “substantially to the like effect”, nor was its omission immaterial.
2. The question to be asked was, if the omitted notes had been included, would they have formed any part of the substance of the notice? (See Tegerdine v Brooks (1977) 36 P&CR 261 per Bridge LJ, at p267.) The answer to that question, comparing the language of the served form and the words of the prescribed form in the present case, was clearly “yes”.
3. The decision in Morris v Patel [1987] 1 EGLR 75, to the extent that it suggested that the court could disregard an omission, was not sound law.
Joanne Moss (instructed by Goldkorn Davies Mathias) appeared for the appellant; Adrian Iles (instructed by H Omar & Co) appeared for the respondent.