In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was invalid. It was a form preescribed by the rules requiring the correct identification of the landlord. The court considered also the effect of the omission to inform a proposed lessee about what would happen on a reference to a rent assessment committee on the substitution of council tax for poll tax. It would be a source of confusion rather than an evident error.
Judges:
Nicholls LJ
Citations:
[1986] 1 WLR 1381
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25, Landlord & Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 (SI 1957/1157),
Cited by:
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Pearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187736