Tenant, Simone Dior, has failed in her Appeal Court challenge to a Bromley County Court ruling that backed landlord B Osborn & Cos claim for possession of her London flat.
B Osborn had claimed possession of 1 Bramley Court, 47-55 Knowles Hill Crescent, London SE13, under section 20 of the Housing Act 1988, on the grounds that Dior held only an assured shorthold tenancy.
Dior claimed to enjoy a fully assured tenancy because the form 7 notice of an assured shorthold tenancy had not been properly served upon her, and was not valid anyway since it did not include the landlords name and address.
The county court found in favour of the landlord on both points, and, while no appeal was raised on the service point, Dior today asked the Court of Appeal to reverse the finding on the validity point.
She argued that the judge was wrong to find that, since there is no obligation for a fully assured tenant to be given the landlords name and address, it would be illogical to make it a requirement for an assured shorthold tenancy to be created.
She also claimed he was wrong to find that the notice of an assured shorthold tenancy (form 7) was ambiguous, since when an agent signs the notice for a landlord and gives the agents name and address, it is unclear whether the name and address of the landlord is also required.
Dismissing her appeal the judge held that, in the normal course of events, a notice served to a prospective tenant under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 should include the name and address of the landlord. However, he said that the failure of such a notice to include that information did not necessarily invalidate it if the notice included the name and address of an agent of the landlord. The effect of the notice would still remain substantially the same.
The court applied the same principles to a second, conjoined, appeal.
B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior; Marito Holdings SA v Deneche Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Sedley and Arden LJJ) 22 January 2003.
Jon Holbrook (instructed by Anthony Gold) appeared for the appellant in the first appeal; Helen Galley (instructed by Campbell Hooper) appeared for the respondent. Paul Staddon (instructed by Oliver Fisher) appeared for the appellant in the second appeal; George Cselko, with permission of the court, (instructed by McEwen Parkinson) appeared for the respondent.
PLS News 23/01/03
