Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Four more cases on possession proceedings

Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.


There are four interesting cases in the most recent edition of Legal Action Magazine on proceedings for possession under section 21 and the provisions of the Housing Act 2004, so I hasten to share them with you. They all cover different points. Although they are all County Court decisions and therefore not binding on other Judges, they show how Judges are thinking and interpreting the statute.

Universal Estates v. Tiensia
Croydon CC, 23 Feb 2009
In this case the deposit was paid in instalments. The tenant, Ms Tiensia, fell into arrears and the landlord served a s8 notice based on rent arrears. Ms Tiensia counterclaimed for the 3 x deposit award on the basis that the deposit was unprotected. The landlord then protected the deposit with MyDeposits and faxed the certificate to Ms T. However the Judge found that this was not enough. The landlord had failed to comply with the initial requirements of MyDeposits terms and conditions, and was thus in breach of s213(1) and (4) and s214(1)(a) of the Housing Act 2004. Order for £7K to Ms T.

I was particularly pleased (and perhaps a little smug) to see this decision, as the point about the failure to comply with the schemes own rules, is something I remember writing about some time ago, but has not so far as I am aware been mentioned by anyone else until now.

Seghier v. Rollings
Bow CC, 6 Mar 2009
Here the landlord, Ms Rollings, only protected the deposit shortly before the hearing and handed the certificate to the tenant at court. However she did not fully comply with the notice requirements, and for example had not handed over the MyDeposits leaflet. Here the Judge 'distinguished' (legal phraseology meaning the two cases are not the same) the Sheffield case of Harvey .v Bamforth (where the landlord won) because here the landlord had not fully complied with s214(6)(a). Order in favour of the tenant.

Beal v. McCartney
Plymouth CC, 12 Mar 2009
Poor old Mr Beal was evicted by his landlords mortgage company due to his landlords mortgage arrears. As he had not been given any information about his deposit by his landlord, he sued for the fine of 3 x the deposit sum. He succeeded and was also awarded £500 damages for the eviction (legal terminology is for 'breach of quiet enjoyment'). However the fact that he was evicted by his landlords mortgage company indicates that his landlord is in probably in dire financial problems, so this may be a bit of a phyrric victory.

Raco Ltd v. Roberts
Central London CC, 6 Mar 2009
Unlike the others in this post, this case is about failure to obtain an HMO license. A good sub heading for this case would be 'if at first you don't suceed, try, try and try again, and still fail'!

Here the landlord had served two section 21 notices and issued two separate sets of proceedings. Mr Roberts, the tenant, defended the first on the basis that the s21 notice had been served before the tenancy was signed and at a time when the property was unlicensed, and the second set of proceedings just on the basis that the property was unlicensed. The two cases were joined and dealt with together. The landlord then served a further section 21 notice (presumably by this time having obtained a license) and applied to the court to have the proceedings amended to rely on this notice rather than the earlier two. However the Judge refused the application as a 1996 Court of Appeal decision (Lower Street Properties v. Jones) has held that the s21 notice must expire before the issue of proceedings. (Presumably Raco Ltd have now changed their lawyers and started a new set of proceedings, but we are not told about this).

In conclusion
All of these cases were resolved in favour of the tenant. This just goes to show how careful landlords need to be to follow the rules properly. If you don’t, you risk not only losing your claim for possession, but also being made to pay your tenants legal costs. Which, if they were in receipt of legal aid, could be expensive.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


Nearly Legal said...

Dang, where is my copy of LAG? Why haven't I seen it yet?

Expect a near duplicate of this post when I do.

Not surprised about the compliance with 14 days finding - I think I had mentioned the possibility and frankly the County Court lottery at present means pretty much any variation on the theme is possible.

Tessa said...

I confess I was surprised that you had not already done something - I did check!

Anonymous said...

Not mentioned in LAG or is the fact that in Universal Estates v. Tiensia the rent was £2,400 as so not an AST as this would exceed the £25K limit. Surely therefore the case was not an AST, regardless of that any paperwork might have said, and so the deposit did not need to be covered? Expensive mistake not to have argued that one.