Flat – Lease – Freehold – Appellant tenant claiming right to acquire landlord’s reversion – Respondent landlord disposing of reversion without giving appellant prior notice – Appellant purporting to serve purchase notice – Notice containing errors – County court finding notice not validly served – Whether appellant serving valid purchase notice on respondent – Appeal allowed
In July 1999, the appellant purchased a 199-year lease of one of two flats. In 1992, the freeholder transferred the freehold interest in the building to the respondent for £500.
In 2004, the respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant for the payment of £1,234.70 that was allegedly due under the lease. The appellant denied liability and counter-claimed for specific performance of its demand that the freehold reversion be transferred to the tenants, the repayment of ground rent totalling £650 and a sum equal to the difference between the sums paid in respect of insurance payments and an amount that the appellant would have paid for insurance. In May 2005, the county court gave judgment for the appellant and required him to serve a purchase notice pursuant to section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
The appellant purported to serve the notice in an envelope addressed to the respondent at its registered office. The notice contained various errors, in that it bore the incorrect date, referred to the Housing Act 1987, which did not exist, and quoted section 12A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which was not applicable.
A dispute arose as to whether the appellant had served a notice within the requisite time limit. The judge held that the appellant had done so and refused to extend the time for service, with the result that the appellant’s effort to have the freehold transferred had come to an end.
The appellant appealed, raising the principal issue of whether he had validly served a purchase notice pursuant to section 12 of the 1987 Act.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
In considering whether the notice was valid, the judge had failed to have regard to the imperative requirements that it had to be in writing, served on the new landlord in time and give adequate notice of the requirement of the qualifying tenants to have the estate or interest. In determining whether the disputed document provided adequate notice of that requirement, it was necessary to consider whether it was sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to leave a reasonable recipient in no reasonable doubt that the tenants were giving such notice: Kay-Green Co Ltd v Twinsectra Ltd [1996] 2 EGLR 43; [1996] 38 EG 136 and Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 57; [1997] 24 EG 122; [1997] 25 EG 138 considered.
When deciding to whom a notice was sent by post, in circumstances in which the addressee on the envelope was different from that on the notice, it was necessary to have regard not only to the address on the envelope and on the notice but also to the terms of that notice. Where the addressee on the envelope and that on the notice appeared to be different, the terms of the notice might resolve the conflict.
In the present case, considering the notice in context, it was certain that, although the notice had been badly and incorrectly drafted, the reasonable recipient could have been left in no doubt that the appellant and the other tenant were giving notice to the respondent of the requirement to have the freehold of the premises transferred to them.
Neither the incorrect date nor the naming of the incorrect Act could have caused the reasonable recipient to have been in any doubt as to what the tenants required. Furthermore, failure to specify the addresses of the flats of which the tenants were qualifying tenants did not render the notice invalid. The requirement for addresses to be specified was directory rather than mandatory.
Tom Carpenter-Leitch (instructed by Legal-Action, of Romford) appeared for the appellant; Nicola Muir (instructed by Osmond Gaunt & Rose) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
