B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior

A notice under section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 complies with the prescribed Form 7 if, despite errors or omissions, it is substantially to the same effect as a duly completed form. The assessment is objective and focuses on the statutory purpose of informing the prospective tenant that the tenancy will be an assured shorthold tenancy.

Where the landlord’s agent signs the notice and supplies the agent’s particulars, omission of the landlord’s name, address and telephone number does not invalidate it. Nor does the insertion of incorrect landlord particulars necessarily do so. Actual prejudice to the tenant is irrelevant to validity, although misleading information may give rise to separate remedies.

Two tenants appealed against possession orders made respectively by Bromley County Court and the Central London Civil Justice Centre. The appeals were heard together because each concerned the validity of a pre-tenancy notice under section 20 of the Housing Act 1988.

In the Osborn appeal, the landlord’s agent had signed Form 7 and supplied the agent’s particulars, but the spaces for the landlord’s particulars were blank. In the related Marito appeal, the agent’s particulars were supplied but the stated landlord was not the true landlord.

The central issue was whether an omission or misstatement of the landlord’s identity prevented the notice from being in the prescribed form, or a form substantially to the same effect, with the consequence that the tenancy was assured rather than assured shorthold.

1. The Osborn appeal was dismissed unanimously. The notice remained valid even though it omitted the landlord’s name, address and telephone number. Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Simon Brown also dismissed the Marito notice issue. Lord Justice Sedley dissented on that appeal because the notice positively stated false landlord particulars.

2. Per Lady Justice Arden, with Lord Justice Simon Brown agreeing, Form 7 required both the landlord’s and agent’s particulars when the agent signed. Failure to comply with that requirement was not necessarily fatal. Under regulation 2 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988, the decisive question was whether the notice remained substantially to the same effect as a properly completed Form 7.

3. The assessment required comparison of the prescribed form with the notice served. The court had to consider whether the omitted or misstated information was sufficiently important or valuable to form part of the substance of the prescribed form. Particular weight was given to the statutory purpose identified by section 20(2)(d) of the Housing Act 1988: informing the prospective tenant that the tenancy was to be an assured shorthold tenancy.

4. The landlord-particulars boxes helped identify the proposed tenancy and confirm that the notice came from an authorised source. Where the agent signed and supplied its own particulars, omission of the landlord’s details did not defeat those purposes. The tenant could ascertain the landlord’s identity through statutory rights, enquiry of the agent or the tenancy agreement.

5. The same majority reasoning applied where incorrect landlord particulars had been inserted. Any deception or misrepresentation could support a separate remedy, but did not determine whether Form 7 had been substantially complied with.

6. Validity was assessed objectively. The question was how the notice would be understood by a reasonable recipient in its context. Evidence that the particular tenant was, or was not, actually prejudiced was irrelevant.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2003] EWCA Civ 281, unanimously dismissed Dior’s appeal on the section 20 notice issue. The related Marito appeal was dismissed on that issue by a majority.

2. Bromley County Court: Her Honour Judge Hallon granted the landlord possession on 24 May 2002, holding that the premises were held under a validly terminated assured shorthold tenancy.