Filpe Alexander Scalora v Clarion Housing Association

An assured tenancy may end through a valid tenant’s notice to quit, surrender, or surrender by operation of law. A tenant’s notice is a unilateral act which takes effect according to its terms and cannot be withdrawn. Surrender by operation of law is founded on estoppel and does not depend on the parties’ actual intention.

A claim for unlawful eviction requires the tenancy to remain in existence when the alleged deprivation occurs. The court determines disputed facts on the balance of probabilities by assessing the evidence as a whole, giving appropriate weight to contemporary documents and inherent probabilities. Here, the evidence established that the tenant had given notice terminating the tenancy, so the claim failed.

The claimant, an assured tenant of a flat owned by the defendant social housing provider, claimed damages for wrongful eviction, breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment and deceit. He alleged that employees had manufactured evidence that he had surrendered the tenancy and had induced him to send the keys while he was abroad.

The central issues were whether disputed emails were authentic, whether the claimant had given valid written notice terminating the tenancy, whether the tenancy had otherwise ended by surrender or estoppel, and whether the statutory unlawful-eviction provisions applied. The claim was tried at first instance following a nine-day hearing.

1. Fact-finding. The burden was on the claimant and the court applied the balance of probabilities. It assessed the evidence on the wide canvas, considering each item in context, the limitations of memory, contemporary documents and inherent probabilities. The claimant was found to be an unreliable witness, while the defendant’s witnesses were accepted where material.
2. Authenticity of communications. The court accepted the cyber evidence and the defendant’s evidence about its customer-record systems. Emails from the claimant’s countermail and cmail accounts, including those forming the relevant chains, were genuine and had been sent by him. One separate Outlook email was accepted to be fraudulent, but that did not undermine the remaining evidence.
3. Termination by notice. The claimant’s email of 12 February 2020, confirmed in later communications, amounted to written notice to terminate the tenancy with effect from 30 March 2020 under the contractual termination provision. A periodic tenancy may be determined by a tenant’s unilateral notice to quit, which cannot subsequently be withdrawn.
4. Alternative basis. The claimant’s conduct also established that he had moved most of his belongings into storage, stopped paying rent, returned the keys, arranged collection and forwarding of possessions, and sought a landlord’s reference for another tenancy. Even if the notice had been ineffective, he was estopped from asserting that the tenancy continued. Surrender by operation of law depends on estoppel rather than actual intention.
5. Disposition. The claimant was no longer a tenant after 30 March 2020. His claims for unlawful eviction and breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment failed. The claim was dismissed. A further hearing was listed to deal with costs and outstanding matters.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history was stated in the judgment.