Bradford Community Housing Ltd v Hussain & Anor

A notice to quit a periodic tenancy must comply with the contractual requirements as to length and expiry. A notice which states an incorrect date but also specifies the next complete tenancy period may nevertheless take effect on the correct contractual date when read objectively.

One joint tenant may terminate a periodic joint tenancy by a valid notice to quit. Consent from all joint tenants is required for a surrender or the exercise of a break clause, but not for such a notice. Payment or acceptance of rent after expiry does not alter the notice. It can assist the tenant only where the parties intended to create a new tenancy.

The appellant and the Part 20 defendant held an assured weekly tenancy as joint tenants. The tenancy agreement required at least 28 days’ written notice expiring on a Friday. The Part 20 defendant served a notice which named Sunday 25 February 2007 but also referred to the next complete tenancy period after four weeks.

After she and her children were rehoused, the housing association sought possession against the appellant. A district judge made a possession order. HHJ Hawkesworth QC dismissed the appellant’s first appeal. The appellant’s Article 8 defence had been rejected below. Permission for a second appeal was limited to the validity and effect of the notice to quit.

Appeal dismissed. Patten LJ, with whom Aikens LJ agreed, held that the joint tenancy ended on Friday 23 February 2007.

1. A periodic tenancy continues unless ended by a notice of at least the tenancy period which expires on the final day of a period. The agreement here imposed the longer contractual requirement of 28 days’ written notice expiring on a Friday.

2. The notice was effective on Friday 23 February. Although it gave Sunday 25 February as one possible date, its reference to the next complete period of the tenancy was plainly intended to ensure compliance with the agreement. Objectively read, it would be understood to take effect on the first date that complied with that requirement. This conclusion accorded with [1997] AC 749.

3. A valid notice to quit a periodic joint tenancy may be served by one joint tenant, under [1992] 1 AC 478. The rule requiring every joint tenant’s consent for a surrender or the exercise of a break clause did not apply. The notice was not varied so as to become a consensual termination at some other point in the tenancy period.

4. The rent demand and payment up to Sunday 25 February were routine and did not evidence a variation. The letter concerning a possible holding-over was conditional on alternative accommodation not being available. It did not agree to vary the notice.

5. In any event, rent paid or accepted after a notice expires does not alter its effect unless the parties intended to create a new tenancy. The evidence could not support an intention to renew the joint tenancy; at most it suggested a possible tenancy for the Part 20 defendant alone. Accordingly, neither the original joint tenancy nor a replacement joint tenancy survived.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appellant’s second appeal, limited to the validity and effect of the notice to quit: [2009] EWCA Civ 763.
• Bradford County Court (HHJ Hawkesworth QC) dismissed the appellant’s first appeal on 14 January 2009, including the challenge to the notice and the Article 8 defence.
• Bradford County Court (District Judge) rejected the defences and made a possession order, granting permission to appeal and staying the order.