Case Law & Prescribed Information
Siddeeq v Alaian. K00BF465 County Court at Mayor’s and City of London County Court. HHJ Hellman. 9 August 2024 (unreported).
A County Court Circuit Judge appeal from a possession claim at Brentford County Court, on the validity of a section 21 notice due to arguments over the deposit prescribed information. The key question was whether information given by the landlord could be ‘prescribed information’ in relation to the deposit if it was given to the tenant before the deposit was paid.
The tenancy agreement on this AST was signed on 12 November 2021. The tenancy agreement, as is common, had a section setting out various items of the ‘tenancy deposit prescribed information’ and stated the deposit value. The end statement of the agreement said that the signature was the landlord’s certification of the information, and the tenant’s confirmation of its accuracy to the best of their knowledge. A Mydeposits scheme leaflet was provided with the tenancy agreement.
The deposit was paid by the tenant on 13 November 2021. The deposit was protected on about 19 November 2021 and the deposit protection certificate provided to the tenant, although not signed by either.
So the only signature as to the accuracy of the prescribed information where those of the landlord and the tenant on the tenancy agreement, signed before the deposit was paid.
The landlord served a section 21 notice on 3 November 2022 and a possession claim via the accelerated procedure issued on 24 April 2023. A defence was served. At first instance trial the District Judge held that the prescribed information could be given before the deposit was paid. The tenant sought permission to appeal, which was granted by HHJ Luba KC.
Court of Appeal Clarifies Formalities for Signing of s.8 Notices and Prescribed Information
Written by David Smith - Partner JMW Solicitors
Court of Appeal clarifies formalities for signing of s.8 notices and prescribed information certificates for corporate landlords
The Court of Appeal (the “CoA”) heard the second appeal of Northwood Solihull v Fearn & Ors last week. The outcome of this case has serious implications for landlords, tenants and agents in England and Wales and possibly in recognition of this, judgment was handed down today only 8 days after the hearing. JMW acted for the landlord.
The main questions before the CoA in summary were:
-
What is the correct way for a deposit prescribed information certificate to be signed by a landlord who is a company?
-
What is the correct way for a section 8 notice to be signed by a landlord who is a company?
The CoA also considered what the consequences are where these documents are not signed in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.
In summary, the following cheat sheet contains the practical essence of the CoA’s decision:
i. Possession notices and prescribed information certificates may be validly signed by an authorised individual on behalf of a corporate landlord or agent.
ii. These documents may also be signed in accordance with s.44 of the Companies Act 2006.
iii. Non-compliance with i. & ii. or other relevant statutory requirements does not necessarily invalidate the document and the effect of non-compliance will depend on the specific defect and factual context.