Prempeh v Lakhany

A notice under the Housing Act 1988 based on rent arrears is not a “demand for rent” for the purposes of section 47(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Its function is to inform the tenant of intended possession proceedings, the grounds relied on and the relevant timetable. It does not require or request payment. The prescribed Form 3 does not require the landlord’s own name and address where an agent signs it. The details following the signature may be those of the agent. The notice was therefore valid despite omitting the landlord’s details. The court left open the consequences of a genuinely non-compliant rent demand under section 47(1).

The tenant appealed against an order of HHJ Lethem dated 16 December 2019. That order had set aside an earlier possession and rent-arrears judgment of DDJ Goodman and remitted the matter for a new trial on other grounds.

The landlord’s section 8 notice relied on Grounds 8, 10 and 11 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. It was signed by the landlord’s solicitors as agent and gave their name and address, but omitted the landlord’s own name and address. The appeal concerned whether the notice was invalid because it was a demand for rent under section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, or because it was not in the prescribed form. The identity of the tenant’s current landlord remained a matter for trial.

Appeal dismissed. The section 8 notice was valid and effective. Its omission of the landlord’s own name and address did not invalidate it.

1. Demand for rent. A section 8 notice relying on rent arrears is not a “demand for rent” within section 47(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. “Demand” is an ordinary English word, but there must be communication requiring payment. The notice’s statutory function under section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 is informational: it tells the tenant that possession proceedings are intended, identifies the grounds and particulars, and states the relevant dates. It does not require the tenant to do anything.
2. The analysis is reinforced by Grounds 8 and 11. Ground 11 may be relied on despite payment of arrears before proceedings. Under Ground 8, the arrears existing at service and at the hearing need not be the same arrears. It would therefore be inaccurate to treat the notice as conveying that payment of the specified arrears would necessarily prevent proceedings. The court agreed with HHJ Lethem’s conclusion and did not follow the contrary county court decision in CY Property Management Ltd v Babalola. The purposes described in Torridge DC v Jones (1985) 18 HLR 107, Mountain v Hastings (1993) 25 HLR 427, Kelsey Housing Association v King (1995) 28 HR 270 and Pease v Carter [2020] EWCA Civ 175 were consistent with an informational notice, not a demand.
3. Prescribed form. Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988 made the prescribed Form 3, or a form substantially to the same effect, applicable. Form 3 expressly permits signature by the landlord’s agent. The name, address and telephone number following the signature are the details of the signatory. The form contains no separate space or instruction requiring the landlord’s own details. Requiring those details in addition would create a trap for unwary users of the form.
4. The court did not decide the consequences that would follow if a section 8 notice were a non-compliant demand for rent under section 47(1), nor whether such a notice would otherwise be substantially to the same effect as Form 3. If the notice had been invalid, section 8(1)(b) would have permitted dispensation only where just and equitable, and section 8(5) would have barred dispensation where Ground 8 was relied on.

Henderson LJ and David Richards LJ agreed with Nugee LJ.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed; the section 8 notice was held valid and effective: [2020] EWCA Civ 1422.
2. County Court at Central London: HHJ Lethem allowed the tenant’s appeal on Grounds 1, 3, 5 and 6, set aside DDJ Goodman’s order and remitted the matter for a new trial.
3. County Court at Barnet: DDJ Goodman ordered possession and entered judgment for rent arrears following the initial undefended hearing.