CHRISTOPHER MOONEY v KAREN VICTORIA WHITELAND

A notice increasing rent under the Housing Act 1988 must state that the new rent will take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy. For a weekly tenancy whose periods begin on Monday, a Friday date is non-compliant.

The notice may be corrected under the reasonable-recipient approach only where the intended meaning is clear and free from reasonable doubt. A tenant may rely on the prescribed form and its guidance. The county court, not a rent assessment committee, decides whether the notice is valid. Failure to refer the notice to the committee does not cure invalidity.

The landlord appealed from a preliminary-issue decision of His Honour Judge Beard in the Cardiff County Court in possession proceedings. A notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 proposed increasing the weekly rent from £25 to £100 from Friday 7 December 2018. The tenancy had begun on Monday 20 May 1991, and the tenant usually paid on Fridays. The county court held the notice invalid and held that validity was for the court, not the rent assessment committee.

The appeal challenged the date on which the tenancy periods began, the application of the reasonable-recipient approach to statutory notices, and the effect of the tenant’s failure to refer the notice to the committee.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Tenancy periods. The landlord’s own pleaded case, and the common position before the Deputy District Judge, was that the tenancy began on Monday 20 May 1991. He could not advance a contrary case on appeal.
2. Validity of the notice. The reasonable-recipient approach in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19 and Pease v Carter [2020] EWCA Civ 175 requires a notice to be read objectively and in context. An obvious error may be corrected where the intended meaning is free from reasonable doubt. The notice must nevertheless satisfy the requirements and purpose of the statutory regime. The prescribed Form 4D and its guidance notes expressly stated that, for a weekly tenancy beginning on Monday, the new rent must begin on Monday.
3. The date of Friday 7 December 2018 was not an obvious error. It was at least as likely that the landlord intended the rent to take effect on that Friday. The notice also contained alternative and contradictory possible meanings, and its referral deadline pointed to 7 December. A reasonable tenant could not know that the landlord intended Monday 10 December. The notice was therefore invalid.
4. Jurisdiction. Under sections 14 and 40 of the Housing Act 1988, the rent assessment committee determines the appropriate market rent, while the county court determines whether a section 13 notice complies with the statutory requirements. R (Morris) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2002] EWCA Civ 276 did not establish that a committee’s view on validity was binding or excluded the court’s jurisdiction. The tenant’s failure to refer the notice created a risk if it were valid, but did not deprive the court of jurisdiction or validate it.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on 1 February 2023. The court upheld the conclusion that the rent-increase notice was invalid and that validity fell within the county court’s jurisdiction: [2023] EWCA Civ 67.
• Cardiff County Court: His Honour Judge Beard held that the notice was invalid and that the rent assessment committee did not have jurisdiction to determine its validity.
• County Court at Swansea: Deputy District Judge Evans had held that the notice was valid and increased the rent from 7 December 2018.