Mountain v Hastings: CA 16 Apr 1993

The tenant disputed the effect of a notice to quit. Paragraph 3 of the form read: ‘The landlord intends to seek possession on grounds . . in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, which reads: Give the full text of each ground which is being relied on. (Continue on a separate sheet if necessary).’ By regulation 2 of the 1988 Regulations: ‘any reference to a numbered form is a reference to the form bearing that number in the Schedule to these regulations or to a form substantially to the same effect’.’
Held: A notice to quit given in respect of an assured tenancy need not follow the apparent wording of the Act precisely.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘The regulation, however, expressly permits the notice to be effective in the prescribed form if it is ‘substantially to the same effect’, which I take to mean to be showing no difference in substance having regard to the legislative purpose of the provisions as a whole. I, therefore, am not persuaded that there is a statutory requirement that the ground be set out verbatim from the schedule. I am troubled by the risk that if the tenant is faced with the seven words which effectively set out the substance of a ground but in markedly different words, the tenant may, if he has access to the words in schedule 2, be puzzled and troubled by the difference. There is something to be said in favour in the use of the words in which the ground was enacted by Parliament. I do not decide this point, however, because the case can be, and I think should be, decided on the ground that the plaintiff’s notice was not ‘substantially to the same effect’ as that required by the Act and regulations.’
As to the extended powers given to courts under section 9, the court had the ‘impression’ that it ‘is not dealing with the ordinary power of adjournment which the court has to control and direct the conduct of a trial: it is directed to an extended discretion as there described.’ The tenant should know from the notice what he or she should do ‘which will best protect her against the loss of her home.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

Independent 16-Apr-1993, (1993) 25 HLR 427

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNorth British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
MentionedKnowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis CA 9-Apr-2003
The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings.
Held: The transfer moved . .
CitedGarrett v Halton Borough Council CA 18-Jul-2006
. .
CitedMasih, Regina (on The Application of) v Yousaf CA 6-Feb-2014
Appeal against refusal to set aside possession order made under assured shorthold tenancy. No rent was paid on three rent days, but then the Housing benefit begand clearing arrears in part.
Held: It is settled law that the notice requiring . .
CitedLondon Borough of Hackney v Findlay CA 20-Jan-2011
An application had been made to set aside a possession order obtained by a social landlord and determined by a district judge who applied CPR3.1 (7), when setting the possession order aside. By the time the landlord’s appeal against that decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83883