London Borough of Camden v Stafford

Under sections 128 and 129 of the Housing Act 1996, possession proceedings against an introductory tenant require a properly served notice and, where review is requested, confirmation of the original decision to seek possession. A review decision stating that possession proceedings should not presently be brought and proposing alternatives does not amount to confirmation. The original notice then cannot found the court’s jurisdiction, and a fresh notice is required. A review decision must be interpreted realistically and benevolently, but it must express confirmation clearly. The statutory scheme does not permit conditional notices or conditional review confirmations. A landlord may nevertheless keep the situation under review and defer or abandon proceedings while conduct improves.

The respondent held an introductory tenancy from the appellant local housing authority. Following complaints of noise nuisance, the authority served a notice of proceedings for possession under the Housing Act 1996. On review, the panel upheld the service of the notice but stated that possession proceedings should not be brought at that time and recommended alternative measures, including an acceptable behaviour agreement and support services.

Further complaints led the authority to issue proceedings relying on the original notice. HHJ Bailey dismissed the possession claim, holding that the review decision had not confirmed the decision to seek possession. The appeal concerned whether the review letter preserved the authority’s ability to rely on the original notice and whether the respondent’s alternative defences required determination.

Appeal dismissed. The authority could no longer rely on the original notice of proceedings for possession.

1. A notice under section 128 of the Housing Act 1996, confirmed on a section 129 review where a review is requested, is the foundation of the County Court’s jurisdiction to entertain possession proceedings. The review is of the landlord’s decision to seek possession, not merely of whether the notice was correctly served.
2. Whether confirmation has occurred is determined from the decision as notified, ordinarily the review letter itself. Later witness statements cannot amplify or alter the notified decision. The document must be read as a whole, adopting a realistic and practical approach rather than a technical or nit-picking one. The formal and jurisdictional nature of the notification nevertheless makes clarity important. This approach was supported by Ali v Birmingham City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1279 and Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7.
3. The panel’s statement that the notice had been correctly served and that the decision to serve it was upheld did not outweigh its substantive decision that an application for possession should not be made at that time. The proposed alternatives involved continuing and potentially open-ended measures. The letter therefore did not unequivocally confirm the original decision. The distinction from Cardiff City Council v Stone [2003] EWCA Civ 298 and the comparison with Forbes v Lambeth London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 222 (QB) led to the same conclusion.
4. Lord Justice Etherton added that a section 128 notice cannot itself be conditional on continuing compliance with prescribed conditions, and a section 129 review cannot introduce such conditionality. The authority may keep the situation under review, defer or discontinue proceedings, and indicate that improved conduct may change its intention. Any later dispute should be dealt with through a fresh notice and review. Barber v Croydon LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 51 supported the authority’s continuing ability and duty to review the situation.

Lord Justice Aikens agreed with both judgments. The alternative defences in the respondent’s notice were not determined because they were unnecessary to the disposal of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the authority’s appeal and upheld the conclusion that the original section 128 notice could not be relied upon.
• Central London Civil Justice Centre, HHJ Bailey: dismissed the possession claim, holding that the review decision did not confirm the decision to seek possession.