Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson

A statutory rent-increase notice remains valid where an earlier prescribed form is substantially to the same effect as the current form. Differences in layout and explanatory notes are immaterial if the required information is communicated. A landlord’s address may be given care of an identified agent. An annualised rent figure may express a monthly rent where the payment basis is unchanged. Service of a statutory notice means delivery to the tenant; it does not require the tenant to understand or read it. Mental incapacity does not alter that meaning unless Parliament has prescribed a special method of service.

Mr Ferguson appealed against a possession order made by His Honour Judge Rose in the Wandsworth County Court. The order followed the landlord’s reliance on rent arrears and the mandatory possession ground under the Housing Act 1988.

The trial judge held that the landlord’s rent-increase notice and subsequent possession notice were valid. The principal questions were whether the rent had been lawfully increased, whether the statutory notices had been served, and whether possession was reasonable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The possession order was upheld. A section 18 order was made, Mr Ferguson’s contribution was assessed as nil, legal aid taxation was directed, and possession was ordered 28 days from judgment.
2. The rent-increase notice complied with section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988. Regulation 2 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies Forms Regulations 1997 permitted a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form. Differences in layout, explanatory information, and the treatment of the landlord’s address did not invalidate the notice. Giving the address care of a named agent was sufficient.
3. The annual rent stated in the notice was not an error. The existing rent had been expressed annually although payable monthly, and nothing indicated a change in the payment basis. The proposed annual figure was therefore to be construed as a monthly rent of £800.
4. The judge was entitled to infer from the documents that the contractual rent date had been varied to the twentieth day of each month before succession. That factual finding would not be disturbed.
5. Service under sections 8(1) and 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 means delivery of the document to the particular person or proper address. It does not require the tenant to understand or read it. Mental incapacity did not require a different method of service absent Parliamentary provision.
6. The reasonableness issue did not arise because mandatory ground 8 applied. The court therefore expressed no view on discretionary ground 11.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson [1999] EWCA Civ 3045. Appeal dismissed.
• Wandsworth County Court: His Honour Judge Rose upheld the validity of the rent-increase and possession notices and made a possession order. The order appealed from was dated 24 May 1999.
• Earlier procedural stage: District Judge Tilbury refused an application to set aside an earlier possession order. Judge Rose subsequently set that order aside and gave directions before the second possession proceedings.