Telchadder v Wickland (Holdings) Ltd

Security of tenure under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 is subject to an adequate notice to remedy breach, non-compliance within a reasonable time and a finding that termination is reasonable. The Act prescribes no particular form, contents, timing or end-date for such a notice. Adequacy is assessed by asking how a reasonable reader would understand it in the objective circumstances. A continuing notice may remain effective for later similar conduct. In deciding reasonableness, the court must consider disability, Convention rights and the interests of other residents and the site owner. Serious repeated anti-social conduct may justify termination despite severe consequences for the occupier.

The appeal concerned a licence permitting Brian Telchadder to station his mobile home on Wickland (Holdings) Limited’s protected residential site. The respondent alleged repeated anti-social conduct towards other residents.

HHJ Maloney QC held that a letter dated 15 August 2006 was a valid notice to remedy under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983. He found later serious misconduct, including threats, and concluded that termination was reasonable despite the appellant’s disability and reliance on equality and Convention rights.

The appeal challenged the adequacy and duration of the notice and the assessment of reasonableness.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Mummery LJ with which Black LJ and Dame Janet Smith agreed, dismissed the appeal.

1. Notice. Paragraph 4(a) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires an initial breach, an adequate notice to remedy it and failure to comply within a reasonable time. These requirements are necessary to establish the court’s jurisdiction to decide whether termination is reasonable. The 15 August 2006 letter was sufficient because it described the complained-of conduct, required the appellant to stop it, gave him an opportunity to comply and warned of the consequences of non-compliance.
2. Form and duration. The Act contains no prescribed form, detailed contents, fixed timing or end-date for a notice. The question is whether, on the particular facts, a reasonable reader with knowledge of the objective surrounding circumstances would understand the document as requiring remedy. A notice directed to continuing obligations may remain effective throughout the occupation, so a fresh notice is not required for each later incident of similar conduct. Mummery LJ indicated that different considerations might arise where a notice requires specific works to restore the physical condition of the site.
3. Reasonableness. The judge had to consider all relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s disability, even though no unlawful disability discrimination by the respondent was alleged or established. Articles 8 and 1 of the First Protocol were also relevant. The court had to balance the serious consequences for the appellant’s home and possession against the rights of other residents and the respondent’s property interests. In light of the repeated serious misconduct, its continuing effects and the absence of any feasible alternative plan, the decision to terminate was not plainly wrong and involved no error of law or approach.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 16 May 2012, dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order.
2. Southend County Court — HHJ Maloney QC ordered termination of the appellant’s licence on 17 August 2011, having found breach, failure to comply with notice and reasonableness of termination.