The section 47 ground

As to the contention that a section 8 notice is a demand for rent and so within the scope of section 47 of the 1987 Act, the court considered that the word “demand” is an ordinary English word and should bear its ordinary meaning whereas a section 8 notice provides information required by statute and is not a request for payment of rent, failing which court action would be taken. On the contrary under ground 11 there is no requirement for there to be actual arrears rather persistent defaults in payment. That could not be remedied by payment of rent.

Therefore, a section 8 notice is not a demand for rent and CY Property Management Ltd v Babalola (unreported 25 Jan 2019) may not be relied upon as asserting that it is. That being the case, the Court declined to consider the effect of invalidity under section 47 since the 1987 Act did not make the rent unenforceable, as the obligation to pay rent arises under the lease without need for demand, and a demand which fails to comply with section 47 does not suspend that obligation.

Section 8 formalities ground

In order to comply with section 8 of the 1988 Act, a notice must be in the prescribed form, that is Form 3 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015, as amended.

No issue was taken, rightly, with minor implementation details which varied in the form used which was supplier by a legal stationer. This is envisaged by regulation 2 of the 2015 Regulations. However, one of the requirements of Form 3 is the landlord’s name and address. The instructions as to this requirement are considered to be clear and allow the landlord, licensor or their agent to fill in that signature block including contact details for the person signing.

The tenant’s arguments required that where an agent was used, the landlord’s details should also be supplied. This requirement was not supported by the form itself, either in the form of a space for such details or a direction to include the landlord’s details.

A further point, occurring to the judge but not argued, is that the form is designed for completion by a lay person. Were there such a requirement which were not obvious, then this would be a trap for the unwary and lead to otherwise valid cases being rejected for formal defects.

Conclusion There is no requirement to include the landlord’s details on a section 8 notice where it is signed by an agent for the landlord; nor does such a notice amount to a demand for rent under section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Summary by Chris Hegarty, barrister, Trinity Chambers.

For the judgment, click here.