Telchadder v Wickland (Holdings) Limited

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to an order terminating his licence under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The court held that the letter dated 15 August 2006 satisfied the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act as a notice to remedy anti-social behaviour: it described the conduct, required the occupier to stop and warned of consequences. There is no statutory form, time-limit or requirement to re-serve a new notice for subsequent breaches of the same continuing obligation. The judge had properly taken into account the appellant's disability, discrimination law and Convention rights when assessing whether termination was reasonable and did not err in concluding that termination was justified by the risk to other residents.

Background and procedural posture: This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Maloney QC (Southend County Court) dated 17 August 2011 terminating the appellant's licence to occupy a mobile home on Meadowview Park. The claimant began possession proceedings in September 2009 relying on paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Permission to appeal was given on aspects of adequacy of notice and, subsequently, on reasonableness having regard to disability discrimination and Convention rights.

Nature of the claim/application: The claimant sought possession/termination of the licence on grounds that the occupier had breached the licence by a pattern of anti-social and threatening behaviour and had failed to comply with a notice to remedy breaches.

Key facts: The licence dated 1 June 2006 incorporated Park Rules prohibiting nuisance and harassment. The claimant sent various letters and warnings between 2006 and 2009; the judge found the 15 August 2006 letter to be the only valid notice for the purposes of paragraph 4. Subsequent incidents in 2009 and later involved threats and weapon-like items and led to criminal proceedings and a restraining order.

Issues for decision:

• Whether the 15 August 2006 letter amounted to a valid notice to remedy under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, including whether a notice may remain effective over a prolonged period and must be re-served for later breaches;
• Whether, having regard to the appellant's disabilities, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 / Equality Act 2010 and Convention rights (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1), it was reasonable to terminate the licence and order removal/sale of the mobile home.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court held that the 1983 Act prescribes no detailed form, content or duration for notices under paragraph 4 and that the 15 August 2006 letter adequately described the conduct complained of, required cessation and warned of consequences. There was no statutory requirement to re-serve a fresh notice for later breaches of the same continuing obligation. On reasonableness, the judge had considered the appellant's disability, discrimination law and Convention rights alongside the rights and safety of other residents. Given the repeated and serious anti-social incidents and lack of feasible alternative measures, termination was within the judge's wide discretion and was not wrong in law. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the letter of 15 August 2006 satisfied paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as a notice to remedy (it described the conduct, required cessation and warned of consequences), that the 1983 Act prescribes no form or time-limit for such notices and there was no requirement to re-serve a fresh notice for subsequent breaches of the same continuing obligation, and that the judge had properly taken into account the appellant's disability, discrimination law and Convention rights in concluding that termination was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Appeal from an order of HHJ Maloney QC in the Southend County Court (order made 17 August 2011). Permission to appeal was granted on adequacy of notice; Aikens LJ granted permission on issues of reasonableness and discrimination on 4 November 2011. Hearing in the Court of Appeal on 1 March 2012; judgment delivered 16 May 2012 (Neutral Citation [2012] EWCA Civ 635).