Mr Cunningham was granted an oral tenancy of a ground floor flat. His landlord gave him a rent book which had the words ‘Assured Tenancy’ on the cover. After the landlord’s death, his executors claimed that Mr Cunningham was an assured shorthold tenant and served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice. District Judge Pollard dismissed a possession claim, holding that the rent book was a notice under Sch 2A para 1. On appeal, HHJ Hayward held that he was an assured shorthold tenant and made an order for possession of the flat. Mr Cunningham appealed.

 

Mr Walia entered into an oral assured shorthold tenancy with a rent of £300 per calendar month. Later he signed an agreement which falsely stated that the rent was £450 per month, because the landlords wanted to mislead their bank about their income. The landlords then sold the property with vacant possession. Mr Walia refused to move out and the new landlord brought possession proceedings claiming arrears of rent, calculated at the rate of £450 per month. HHJ Hague QC made a suspended possession order.

 

Mr Isherwood was granted an assured tenancy in about 1994. In 2007, his landlord, Mrs Kahlon, began a possession claim alleging rent arrears and a breach of a covenant to allow access to the property. Mr Isherwood counterclaimed for damages for breach of the landlord’s repairing covenants. The proceedings were compromised by a Tomlin Order which, among other things, provided that: ‘The claimant and the first defendant shall execute an assured shorthold tenancy agreement for the period of 12 months commencing 2 June 2008 in the form annexed hereto, to be signed by the parties not later than 2 June 2008’ (para 5). In May 2008, the parties executed a tenancy agreement headed ‘Assured shorthold tenancy agreement’. Clause 2 provided that the landlord may terminate the tenancy at any time before the expiry of the term by giving to the tenant not less than two months’ written notice. In March 2009, Mrs Kahlon served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice stating that she required possession. She then issued proceedings under the Accelerated Procedure (CPR 55.11). Mr Isherwood defended, saying that no notice in the prescribed form had been served under Housing Act 1988 Sch 2A para 7(1)(c) stating that the tenancy granted in 2008 would be a shorthold tenancy. Recorder Willetts rejected this defence and made an order for possession. He held that the schedule to the Tomlin Order, although not identical in form to Form 8 in the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 SI No 194, was in a form substantially to the same effect. Mr Isherwood appealed.

 

The claimant landlord brought proceedings under the accelerated possession procedure (CCR Order 49 r6A – see now CPR 55.11 to 19) against the defendant. On appeal, the Court of Appeal expressed concern that the district judge adopted the accelerated possession procedure and made a possession order without giving the tenant the opportunity to make representations at an oral hearing. Holman J said:

 

On 11 August 2008, Saxon Weald, a registered charity, granted Mr Chadwick a ‘Probationary Tenancy’. The tenancy agreement stated that for the first 12 months it would be a periodic assured shorthold tenancy, but that at the end of 12 months if the landlord had not taken steps to terminate the tenancy it would automatically convert into an assured periodic tenancy. It also stated that if the tenancy converted to an assured tenancy, the landlord would send a letter confirming the change in status. Soon after the tenancy began, there were allegations of anti-social behaviour. On 5 August 2009, solicitors sent Mr Chadwick a notice requiring possession pursuant to Housing Act 1988 s21(4)(a) and a notice seeking possession, indicating that the landlord intended to seek possession on Grounds 12 and 14. However, Saxon Weald mistakenly sent a letter on 11 August 2009 stating that ‘following the successful completion of your one year starter tenancy, you are now an assured tenant’. As a result, Mr Chadwick claimed that his tenancy had ceased to be an assured shorthold tenancy and had become an assured tenancy. In a subsequent possession claim, a deputy district judge rejected that contention and made a possession order on the basis that Mr Chadwick was still an assured shorthold tenant. HHJ Simpkiss allowed Mr Chadwick’s appeal. He found that the letter of 11 August 2009 was a notice for the purpose of Housing Act 1988 Sch 2A para 2 which was ‘quite plain on its face’.

Ms McDonald had a mental disorder, which made her particularly upset by changes in her environment. Her parents raised money from a third party lender, Capital Homes Ltd, to buy a small property so that she could have a place to live for the foreseeable future. The money was secured by a mortgage over the property. The conditions of the mortgage prohibited the grant of a tenancy to a tenant who was assisted by social security. Mr and Mrs McDonald granted their daughter an assured shorthold tenancy. Ms McDonald paid the rent with housing benefit and Mr and Mrs McDonald used that money to pay the sums payable to Capital Homes Ltd. In time, due to a change in circumstances, they became unable to pay the instalments needed to meet their obligations under the mortgage. As a result, the mortgagee appointed receivers, who, as agents of Mr and Mrs McDonald, served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice seeking possession. Ms McDonald defended the subsequent possession claim, contending that a possession order would infringe the right to respect for her home guaranteed by Article 8 ECHR and that the notice to terminate her tenancy was served on her without the appropriate authority from her landlords. HHJ Corrie made a possession order. Ms McDonald appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal ([2014] EWCA Civ 1049).

 

Mr Ahern was granted a ‘starter’ or ‘probationary’ assured shorthold tenancy of a flat commencing in April 2012. He was a very vulnerable alcoholic whose drunken, anti-social and on occasions, lewd conduct, disturbed and greatly upset his neighbours and others. As a result, in July 2013, the landlord served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice. A possession claim was issued in October 2013. Mr Ahern defended, contending that the notice was void because, in breach of its public law duty, the landlord had not complied with its policy relating to starter tenancies. HHJ Simpkiss found that the landlord had:

Nevertheless, he made a possession order. Mr Ahern appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It turned on the facts. After considering all the relevant materials documenting the history of the landlord’s engagement with Mr Ahern throughout the period leading up to the service of the section 21 notice, it considered whether the landlord was in material breach of its policies. The Court of Appeal accepted the landlord’s argument that it was aware of relevant matters without the need for any further interview. It was clear that Mr Ahern’s needs were being met (if not successfully) by the mental health services and alcohol treatment programme. The Court of Appeal asked rhetorically ‘What more could the landlord reasonably be expected to do?’

 

An assured shorthold tenancy granted for a term of one year from 1 July 1995 included a break clause enabling the landlord to give one month’s notice to determine the tenancy after the expiry of the first six months. On 13 February 1996 the landlord simply served a section 21(1)(b) notice requiring possession on 13 April 1996.

 

A landlord served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice on an assured shorthold tenant. The notice was not signed. The tenant defended subsequent possession proceedings, arguing that because the notice was unsigned, it was invalid. District Judge Shroder found that the notice was valid and made a possession order. HHJ Rubery dismissed an appeal.

 

The Church Commissioners initially granted Ms Meya a two-year fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy. It was subsequently renewed. The last agreement was for a term commencing on 1 January 2004 and expiring on 30 December 2004. The rent was expressed to be ‘a clear yearly rent of £17,680 per annum’. The obligation to pay the rent was expressed to be ‘to pay the rent to the landlords by equal quarterly payments in advance on the usual quarter days (the first such payment or a proportion to be made on the date of this agreement)’. No further tenancy was agreed and on 31 December 2004 Ms Meya became a statutory periodic assured shorthold tenant (Housing Act 1988 s5(2)). On 2 March 2005 the Church Commissioners served a section 21(4) notice stating ‘the landlord requires possession of the property after the thirtieth day of May 2005 or at the end of that period of your tenancy which will end after the expiry of two months from the giving of this notice whichever is the later’. A possession claim was issued on 4 July 2005. Ms Meya accepted that, if the landlord only had to give a quarter’s notice requiring possession, the notice was good. However, she claimed that she had an annual tenancy, insufficient notice had been given and that the issue of proceedings was premature. A deputy district judge dismissed the possession claim. The Church Commissioners appealed.

 

A landlord served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice on an assured shorthold tenant. The notice required possession: ‘After: 22ND NOVEMBER 2008 or, if this notice would otherwise be ineffective, after the date being the earliest date not earlier than two months after the date of service of this notice when shall expire a period of the assured shorthold tenancy.’ The date of November 22 was wrong because it was not a day on which the periodic tenancy expired. The landlord relied on the alternative formula provided in the notice. Recorder Owen QC accepted that submission and made a possession order. The tenant sought permission to appeal.

 

The landlord granted an assured shorthold tenancy for six months from September 1999 to March 2000. After its expiry, the tenants remained as statutory periodic tenants from the 4th of each month to the 3rd of the following month. On 24 October 2002, the landlord gave them a notice headed ‘Section 21(4)(a) Assured Shorthold Tenancy: Notice Requiring Possession Periodic Tenancy’ stating ‘I give you notice that I require possession of the dwelling-house known as … on 4th January 2003’. The tenants did not leave and the landlord began possession proceedings. The tenants defended, claiming that the date specified in the notice was not ‘the last day of a period of the tenancy’ in accordance with section 21(4)(a). A district judge struck out the tenants’ defence and they appealed unsuccessfully to a circuit judge.

 

Landlords granted a tenancy which they claimed was an assured shorthold tenancy for a term of six months from 12 June 1996. On 26 June 1998 they served a notice requiring possession, purportedly in accordance with Housing Act 1988 s21. A circuit judge dismissed possession proceedings on the basis that the notice was invalid because it did not expire on the last day of a period of the tenancy (see section 21(4)). The landlords did not contest that finding.

 

In February 2009, Optima granted Ms Ker an assured shorthold tenancy of a flat under a ‘FlexiBuy’ scheme, whereby she paid a market rent of £700 but had an option to purchase the property at a later date. If she exercised that option, Optima would give her a deposit to help fund the purchase. The value of the deposit was calculated as the difference between the market rent actually paid and the notional social rent that could have been charged for the property (the difference amounting to around £2,500 per year). If Ms Ker was evicted, she would lose both the option and the right to the deposit. After about a year, Ms Ker stopped paying her rent in full. Optima served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice. Ms Ker defended the subsequent possession claim contending that it was, inter alia, disproportionate to make an order for possession. She counterclaimed for a money judgment in respect of the deposit. HHJ Hall made a possession order, with a money judgment for the arrears. He dismissed her counterclaim. She appealed. In the Court of Appeal, Ms Ker accepted that she could not afford to live in the property and did not seek to reverse the possession order. However, she challenged the money judgment for the arrears and the right of Optima to terminate her tenancy.

 

On 28 March 1989 an assured shorthold tenancy was granted to Mr van Praag. The fixed-term tenancy expired by effluxion of time on 27 September 1989. In the years that followed, there were two further fixed-term agreements which purported to create assured shorthold tenancies. The defendant lived with Mr van Praag in the premises. Mr van Praag died in 1992 and whatever tenancy he had vested in the defendant in accordance with Housing Act 1988 s18. The landlord began possession proceedings. However, the claim for possession was dismissed because proceedings were started the day before the section 21 notice expired.

 

The defendant was granted a periodic assured shorthold tenancy. Notting Hill served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice which stated ‘Possession is required (by virtue of section 21(4) Housing Act 1988 of [the property] which you hold as tenant at the end of the period of your tenancy which will end after expiry of two months from the service upon you of this notice’. A possession order was made, but the tenant applied to set it aside on the ground that the section 21 notice was invalid because of the use of the word ‘at’ in the phrase ‘at the end of the period’ instead of ‘after’ (s21(4)(a)). District Judge Plaskow found that the words ‘at the end of’ had the same effect as the word ‘after’, and dismissed the application to set aside. The defendant appealed.

 

 

On 6 March 1996 the plaintiff granted the defendant an assured shorthold tenancy for a term of three years. The written agreement provided that ‘the landlord may bring the tenancy to an end at any time … (but not earlier than six months from the commencement date …) by giving to the tenant not less than two months’ written notice stating that the landlord requires possession of the premises’. On 6 June 1996 the landlord gave notice that he required possession on 6 September 1996. The landlord brought possession proceedings. The tenant argued that the notice was invalid because it was given only three months into the term and so fell foul of the provision in the tenancy agreement allowing termination. A recorder made a possession order.

 

Mr Spencer let a property to Ms Taylor under an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term of six months, beginning on 6 February 2006, a Monday. The rent was payable weekly. There was no further contractual agreement and she became a statutory periodic tenant. In October 2011, Mr Spencer served a Housing Act 1988 s21(4) notice, stating that possession was sought ‘(a) after 01/01/2012 or (b) at the end of your period of tenancy which will end next after the expiration of two months from the service upon you of this notice’. The first of January 2012 was a Saturday. A notice expiring two months after the service of the notice would have expired on 18 December 2011. The next Sunday after that was 23 December 2011. The claim form seeking possession was issued on 27 April 2012.

 

On 13 May 2004, F Q Sidney & Co granted Mr and Mrs Mazrekaj a joint assured shorthold tenancy of a three-bedroom flat. The tenancy was for a fixed term of six months at a weekly rent, payable on the first day of each week. Mr and Mrs Mazrekaj continued to occupy the flat when the fixed term expired on Friday 12 November 2004. Thereafter, by Housing Act 1988 s5, they occupied the flat under a joint periodic assured shorthold tenancy, which ‘renewed itself’ every Saturday. On 5 September 2005, Dovetail Estates, who claimed to be successors in title to the original landlords, sent Mr and Mrs Mazrekaj a notice requiring possession of the flat under Housing Act 1988 s21(4)). The tenants received the notice in the post on 9 September 2005. It required them to give possession of the flat ‘on 7th November 2005 or on the day ending on the last day of a period of your tenancy’. 7 November 2005 was a Monday. Possession was not given up and, on 8 November 2005, the claimants began possession proceedings, using the accelerated procedure (CPR 55 Part II). The claimant did not provide proof of its entitlement to possession when it issued the claim. The defendants argued that (1) the earliest date after which they could have been required to give up possession of the flat was Friday 11 November 2005 and that the claim had been issued prematurely (Lower Street Properties Ltd v Jones (Lower Street Properties v Jones)); and (2) the notice was invalid because 7 November 2005 was not the last day of a period of the tenancy and, applying Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd (Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd), considered objectively, the saving clause in the notice would not enable a reasonable recipient to ascertain the date after which he or she would be required to give up possession of the flat. In particular, it did not specify a period of notice or a date from which notice was intended to run.

 

The claimant granted the defendant an assured shorthold tenancy on 4 February 2002 for a fixed term of 12 months. It was described as a ‘Starter Tenancy’ and included a clause that it would cease to be an assured shorthold after 12 months conditional on no possession proceedings having been brought. On 4 September 2002, the claimant served a section 21 notice but cited rent arrears and anti-social behaviour, although no such behaviour was specified. The claimant brought a possession claim under the accelerated possession procedure. A possession order was made by a district judge without a hearing on 11 December 2002.

 

The defendant was an assured shorthold tenant. In March 2000 his landlord served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice. No possession claim was issued until April 2003. A deputy district judge dismissed the claim for possession, finding that the claimant landlord had waived its right to proceed under the March 2000 notice because it had allowed the defendant to remain in the property for so long after serving the notice.

 

Mr Ayannuga was the landlord of an assured shorthold tenant. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, he paid a deposit of £950. It was held by the administrator of an authorised custodial scheme. He claimed possession based on rent arrears. Mr Swindells counterclaimed, denying any arrears and seeking repayment of the deposit. He alleged that the landlord had breached Housing Act 2004 s213(5) and (6) by failing to provide him with information about the tenancy deposit scheme as prescribed by the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order (‘the Prescribed Information Order’) 2007 SI No 797. During the hearing, the landlord provided additional information concerning the deposit scheme. The judge dismissed the counterclaim, deciding that the landlord had substantially complied with the section 213 obligations. He held that the information in the tenancy agreement and the additional information had substantially the same effect as the information prescribed by the Order. Mr Ayannuga appealed.

In August 2002, Mr Charalambous and Ms Karali were granted an assured shorthold tenancy for a term of one year less a day. They paid a deposit of £1,560. The tenancy was renewed in August 2003 and again in August 2004, in each case for a further period of one year. Under each tenancy agreement the same deposit was required to be paid. No further money actually changed hands. Instead the original deposit was carried over and credited against the renewed tenancy. When the last of the tenancies came to an end in August 2005, a statutory periodic tenancy arose under the Housing Act 1988. In October 2012 the landlord, Mrs Ng, served notice under section 21 requiring possession of the property to be given after 17 December 2012. The deposit paid by Mr Charalambous and Ms Karali was never held under a statutory scheme, as required by Housing Act 2004 ss212 to 214, which came into force on 6 April 2007. The defendants claimed that the section 21 notice was accordingly invalid. District Judge Manners held that the notice was valid and made a possession order.

 

Landlords let a flat to Ms Old on an assured shorthold tenancy. The term of that tenancy was six months from 1 May 2009 to 31 October 2009 at a monthly rent of £950. The tenancy agreement required Ms Old to pay the first six months’ rent in advance. It also required payment of a deposit of £1,425. She paid those sums. The parties entered into further fixed-term agreements on the same terms, but in due course a statutory periodic tenancy came into existence. In April 2011, the landlords served a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice and sought possession. Ms Old claimed that the notice was invalid because the six months’ rent in advance amounted to a deposit that had been paid but that had not been protected by a deposit protection scheme (Housing Act 2004 s215). A deputy district judge found that the payment of rent in advance was a deposit. HHJ Simpkiss allowed the landlords’ appeal.

Mr Okadigbo was the assured shorthold tenant of a house. On 1 August 2012, he paid Dr Chan – his landlord – a deposit of £1,250. Dr Chan brought a claim for possession against him after he failed to pay his rent. Mr Okadigbo brought a counterclaim for the repayment of his deposit and a penalty payment arising from Dr Chan’s failure to protect his deposit and provide the prescribed information within 30 days of the deposit being received, ie by 31 August 2012. The deposit was not protected until 5 March 2013 and the prescribed information was not provided until 8 July 2013. Mr Okadigbo was awarded a penalty payment sum of £1,250. HHJ Carr refused to award a higher sum because Dr Chan was not an experienced landlord, had relied on professional agents who had let him down and the matter was therefore at the low end of the scale. Mr Okadigbo appealed to the High Court.

 

Mr Rodrigues was the assured shorthold tenant of Superstrike Ltd. His tenancy commenced in January 2007 and was for a fixed period of one year less one day. He paid a deposit of £606.66. At the expiry of the fixed term, he became a statutory periodic tenant on equivalent terms. In June 2011, Superstrike gave notice under Housing Act 1988 s21, requiring possession. Mr Rodrigues defended the claim arguing that the statutory periodic tenancy was a new tenancy, so that the previously paid deposit was to be treated as having been paid in respect of that new tenancy and, as the deposit had not been protected with an authorised scheme, the section 21 notice was of no effect. Deputy District Judge Whiteley found for Mr Rodrigues, but HHJ Winstanley allowed an appeal.

 

Mr Francis entered into a sale and leaseback contract relating to his home with UK Housing Alliance. He was paid 70 per cent of the sale price on completion and would receive the balance of 30 per cent after ten years on the giving up of possession. The contract provided that UK Housing Alliance might retain 30 per cent of the purchase price if it terminated the tenancy.

 

On 28 February 2008, Derby Build Ltd (‘the actual landlords’) granted the Draycotts an assured shorthold tenancy for 12 months. Hannells were the letting agents for the actual landlords. The agreement provided that the tenants were under an obligation to pay a deposit of £2,700 to Hannells, which was to hold it as stakeholders as security for the tenants’ performance of their obligations under the agreement. The deposit of £2,700 was credited to Hannells’ account on 4 March 2008. This was a deposit which was required to be protected under Housing Act 2004. It was registered and lodged with the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) on 19 May 2008. Its terms and conditions provided: ‘The landlord or letting agent is responsible for ensuring that deposits are submitted for protection within 14 calendar days of the date of receipt by the landlord.’ The tenants were informed of the payment to DPS on 21 May 2008. The tenants claimed that there was a failure to comply with the initial requirements (section 213) and brought proceedings under section 214(4) for three times the amount of the deposit. Hannells argued that:

 

On 18 December 2012, Mr Tummond was granted a six-month fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy by Ms Pitcher, the landlord. He paid a deposit of £1,390 on the signing of the tenancy agreement. On the same day, Ms Pitcher served a Housing 1988 s21 notice, entitling her to issue possession proceedings at the end of the fixed term. The tenancy agreement stated that the deposit would be protected by an authorised scheme but this was not done until 2 January 2013. After expiry of the fixed term, Ms Pitcher issued possession proceedings relying on the section 21 notice. Mr Tummond defended the proceedings, arguing that the notice had no effect as it had been given before the deposit had been protected (Housing 2004 s215(1)(a)). District Judge Devlin made a possession order. Mr Tummond sought permission to appeal, but HHJ Oliver refused permission. Mr Tummond then sought judicial review.

 

Mr and Mrs Nice granted Ms Suurpere an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term of 6 months, at a monthly rent of £300. Ms Suurpere paid a deposit of £500, but Mr and Mrs Nice did not in fact transfer the deposit from their bank account to the Deposit Protection Service until 20 July 2009. They informed Ms Suurpere of this transfer by a letter of the same date. After serving notices which failed to comply with Housing Act 1988 s21, Mr and Mrs Nice issued summary proceedings for possession in Guildford County Court. On 10 August 2009, Ms Suurpere issued proceedings against Mr and Mrs Nice claiming the return of her deposit and a sum of three times the amount of the deposit (Housing Act 2004 ss213–214). She left the property on 14 August 2009, allegedly as a result of unlawful harassment by Mr and Mrs Nice. She did not return. At trial, HHJ Reid QC dismissed her claim relating to the deposit, finding that, since the deposit had in fact been lodged under the Deposit Protection Scheme on 20 July, before the commencement of her proceedings on 10 August, the penal sanctions in section 214(4) did not apply. Ms Suurpere appealed, contending that Mr and Mrs Nice were in breach of section 213(5) and (6)(a), in that they failed to provide the information required by subsection (5) in the prescribed form.

The defendant was an assured shorthold tenant. The landlord served a Housing Act (HA) 1988 s21 notice on 12 February 2015. The landlord sent a request for release of the deposit to the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) on 10 February 2015. Documentation from the DPS stated that the deposit would be released within two working days. In response, the DPS confirmed to the Landlord that the deposit was paid by direct credit on 12 February 2015. The deposit was not deposited into the tenant’s bank account until 16 February 2015. The tenant argued that Housing Act 2004 s215(2) applied and so the notice was defective.

 

Mr Ireland let the flat of which he was a housing association tenant to Mr Norton and another jointly. A deposit of £800 was paid by Mr Norton’s stepfather. In a possession claim, Mr Norton counterclaimed for the return of the deposit and for an order that he be paid a sum equal to three times the amount of the deposit. The Friday before the trial, Localism Act 2011 s184 came into force so that the court had a discretion whether or not to order payment of between one and three times the amount of the deposit. Transitional provisions gave landlords of current tenancies 30 days to comply. If they did not, the provision remained mandatory. HHJ Simpkiss adjourned the counterclaim to give Mr Ireland the opportunity to comply. He did not do so.

The landlord granted an assured tenancy in 2011. A deposit of £300 was taken but not protected with the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) until November 2015. On 22 December 2015, the landlord authorised DPS to return the deposit. On 23 December 2015, a Housing Act 1988 s21 notice was served. However, the tenant did not actually receive the deposit money via DPS until 19 February 2016. The tenant defended the subsequent possession claim on the basis that the deposit had not been returned in full when the section 21 notice was served.

The claimant landlord sought possession under the accelerated procedure. Ms Sonny filed a defence relying on the MyDeposits scheme rules (7th edition, Clause C1.5) which specified that service of the prescribed information constituted an ‘initial requirement’ of the scheme for the purposes of Housing Act 2004 s213(4). The landlord had failed to serve the prescribed information within 30 days. A possession order was made without the judge considering the defence. Ms Sonny applied to set aside the possession order but her application was dismissed as a deputy district judge felt that the defence had no reasonable prospect of success. Ms Sonny appealed.