Shorthold tenancy of residential flat — Possession order — Whether adequate notice given — Whether landlords estopped from relying on arrears — Tenant’s appeal dismissed
The respondent landlords lived in Florida, USA. The appellant was the tenant of the basement flat at 8 Burnaby Street, London SW10. The tenancy agreement dated January 15 1994 was for a shorthold tenancy, within section 20 of the Housing Act 1988, for a term of six months. On March 9 1995 the respondents obtained a possession order on the grounds of more than three months’ rent arrears and a breach of clause 4(3) of the tenancy agreement (ie failure to repair and/or to occupy in a careful and tenant-like manner). The tenant appealed.
The appeal was confined to three areas viz: (1) whether a valid section 8 notice under the Housing Act 1988 had been served on the tenant, in the prescribed form, of the landlords’ intention to take possession proceedings on the ground of three months’ rent arrears; (2) whether a valid section 48 notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 requiring the landlords’ address for service in England and Wales had been served on the tenant; and (3) whether the landlords were estopped from relying on arrears as a ground for the possession order.
Held The tenant’s appeal was dismissed.
1. It was contended that the purported section 8 notice was not in compliance with statutory requirements as no proper or sufficient particulars of arrears of rent had been given.
2. It sufficed, however, if it was clear to the tenant by the section 8 notice that the landlord was alleging that more than three months’ rent arrears was due at the date of the notice, and that there was some method whereby the tenant could ascertain what was alleged to be due.
3. In Torridge District Council v Jones [1985] 2 EGLR 54, it was stated that it was “almost axiomatic that where a statute required particulars of a ground … nothing short of a specification of the amount which is claimed as being in arrear …” amounted to the proper particular of the ground upon which possession was sought.
4. In the present case it was quite clear that the tenant was alleged to be over three months in arrears and information was given to enable a calculation to be made of how much was due. The statement in Torridge could not have been intended to mean that compliance with section 8 could only be achieved by a notice setting out in terms the amount of rent owing.
5. It was argued that there was no valid section 48 notice giving the landlords’ address for service. However, notice served by the landlords’ son as “acting agent”, including his name and address, gave the required information.
6. It was alleged that rent arrears had arisen as a result of the landlords informing Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council that there was a dispute between the parties. As a result, housing benefit was stopped and the appellant defaulted. There was not sufficient evidence to establish that allegation as a matter of fact.
Philip Rainey (instructed by the Oliver Fisher & Co) appeared for the appellant; Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Pettman Smith) appeared for the respondents.
