Mrs Vincent was an elderly lady. She was a secure tenant, living in a bungalow. In April 2002, she suffered an accident and was admitted to hospital, where she remained for a long time before being placed in a nursing home. From April 2003, one of her sons, the third defendant, lived in the bungalow. The council began possession proceedings against the sons as trespassers. A judge joined Mrs Vincent as a defendant. A possession order was made on the alternative bases that the mother was no longer a secure tenant and on the ground of rent arrears. On the latter basis, the judge considered that it was just and equitable to dispense with the requirement for a section 83 notice. The judge also ordered one of the sons, the third defendant, to pay a sum equivalent to 22 weeks’ rent for his use and occupation of the property. He appealed.

 

Although Housing Act 1985 s83 expressly enables a court to give leave for a landlord to add to or alter the ‘grounds’ on which possession is claimed (s83(4)), it is silent about the addition or alteration of the ‘particulars’ required by the notice.

 

See Housing Law Casebook, 5th Edition, F2.3.

 

In possession proceedings, the council conceded that general rates were not part of the rent. However, the court had to determine whether the possession action could proceed on the basis of the notice seeking possession (NSP) which the council had served in January 1989. The notice had two potential flaws. First, it was not in the precise form prescribed by the Secure Tenancies (Notices) Regulations 1987 SI No 755. Second, the particulars referred to ‘arrears of rent of £145.96’ when the rent in arrears was £72.88, the balance being general and water rates. HHJ Stuart-White held that the notice was defective under Housing Act 1985 s83(2) and dismissed the proceedings.

 

 

 

The council began possession proceedings based on arrears of rent, relying on Housing Act 1980 Sch 4 Ground 1 (now Housing Act 1985 Sch 2 Ground 1). The NSP set out the ground in full, but the particulars given were, ‘The reasons for taking this action are non-payment of rent’. The council’s possession proceedings were struck out on the basis that the particulars given in the NSP were insufficient.

 

 

See Housing Law Casebook 5th edition, F2.8.

 

The council claimed possession relying on Housing Act 1985 Sch 2 Ground 2 (nuisance). The notice seeking possession gave particulars as follows:

 

The council sought possession under Housing Act 1985 Sch 2 Ground 10 (redevelopment). The notice seeking possession recited the ground and set out as particulars ‘major refurbishment scheme’.

 

The defendants were assured tenants of the plaintiff housing association. On 9 February 1994 the housing association served a notice to quit. No section 8 notice was served. In May 1994 the association issued possession proceedings relying on Grounds 12 and 14 (breaches of obligations and nuisance and annoyance). In an appendix to the summons it set out the allegations of nuisance, including a reference to a conviction for actual bodily harm on a neighbour. At the trial of a preliminary issue, HHJ Kennedy held that there had been ‘a virtually total failure to comply with’ section 8. However, he also held that it was just and equitable to dispense with the notice, having regard, among other things, to the delay in objecting to the notice, the effect on neighbours and the effect on the defendants of not having been served with proper particulars. He concluded that they had known of the allegations for many months and that there had been no prejudice to them. The tenants appealed and argued that (a) as the court could not ‘entertain’ the proceedings unless it dispensed with the notice, in exercising its discretion it could only take account of events occurring before the possession claim was issued and (b) on the facts, the tenants had had insufficient notice of the nature of the complaints before the issue of proceedings to justify dispensing with the notice requirement.

 

Local authority landlords served notices seeking possession under Housing Act 1985 s83 on a number of secure tenants and began county court possession claims. They then transferred their housing stock to registered social landlords. As a result of the stock transfers, the landlords were no longer within the landlord condition (Housing Act 1985 s80(1)). The tenancies ceased to be secure. By virtue of Housing Act 1988 s1(1) they became assured tenancies. The tenants contended that, subject to Housing Act 1988 s8(1)(b) (the power to dispense with notices), the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the possession proceedings unless the current landlords served section 8 notices. The landlords applied to the court to dispense with the need for section 8 notices and contended that it was appropriate for the dispensation to be granted in all of the cases, without having regard to the particular circumstances of individual cases. The judge accepted those submissions and granted the dispensation sought. The tenants appealed.

 

The defendant was an assured tenant. After failure by the local authority to pay housing benefit, the landlords brought possession proceedings relying on rent arrears, including the mandatory ground in Housing Act 1988 Sch 2 Ground 8. A notice, purporting to comply with Housing Act 1988 s8, was served before the issue of proceedings, stating as particulars of the arrears, ‘At a meeting between the landlord and tenant on 24 July 1994 the arrears were agreed at £103.29 … Since that date no payments of rent have been made.’ No figure for the arrears at the date of the notice was given.

 

Ms Masih was an assured shorthold tenant. She accrued rent arrears. Mr Yousaf, her landlord, served a Housing Act 1988 section 8 notice seeking possession, relying on Schedule 2 Ground 8. Under the heading ‘Particulars’, the notice stated: ‘The tenant owes £1,680 which represents three months’ rent.’ It did not recite the precise wording of Ground 8, omitting the words ‘rent means rent lawfully due from the tenant’. District Judge Ayers made a mandatory possession order. Ms Masih applied to set aside the possession order, arguing that a strict approach to the prescribed wording was required because Ground 8 was a mandatory ground for possession. District Judge Flavey concluded that he did not have power to do so. HHJ Davies dismissed Ms Masih’s appeal.

 

A notice of intention to bring proceedings given by the landlord, under the heading ‘Ground 8’, simply stated, ‘At least three months’ rent is unpaid’, although later, under ‘Particulars of Ground’, it did state the total of arrears claimed.

 

The defendant was an assured tenant. The tenancy agreement provided that (1) before bringing possession proceedings the landlord would give four weeks’ notice and (2) that it would only rely on certain grounds for possession which were set out in full in the agreement. (At the time the tenancy was granted, these terms reflected the statutory requirements. These requirements were later amended.) The tenant was convicted of an arrestable offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in the locality of the dwelling-house. The victim was his daughter, who lived three streets away on the same estate. The landlord immediately served a section 8 notice, which stated that proceedings would not be begun until after 15 June 1998, the date on which the notice was served. HHJ Appleton made a possession order. The defendant appealed contending that (1) the section 8 notice did not give four weeks’ notice and (2) that, although the conviction came within Housing Act 1988 Sch 2 Ground 14 as amended by Housing Act 1996, it did not come within the unamended version of the ground included in the tenancy agreement.

 

The tenant, who was aged 18, was granted an assured tenancy on 19 May 1997. There were allegations that she had breached many of the coven-ants against causing nuisance or annoyance almost immediately. On 28 May 1997 a solicitor for the landlord housing association appeared ex parte before a district judge and obtained orders that it was just and equitable to dispense with service of a Housing Act 1988 section 8 notice and to abridge the time for service of possession proceedings. The judge also granted an injunction and listed the hearing of the possession claim on 4 June 1997. The housing association had made no attempt to serve a notice or the possession summons before the ex parte hearing, although it would have been quite easy for it to do so. At the hearing on 4 June the tenant appeared and applied for an adjournment so that she could obtain legal advice. The district judge refused that request, and, after hearing evidence, ordered the tenant to give up possession the following day. The tenant appealed.