Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not such as to invalidate the notices.
Held: ‘[T]he better approach is to look at the particular statutory provisions pursuant to which the notice is given and identify what it’s requirements are. Having done so, it should then be possible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the notice served under it adequately complies with those requirements. If anything in the notice contains what appears to be an error on its face, then it may be that there will be scope for the application of the Mannai approach, although this may depend on the particular statutory provisions in question. The key question will always be: is the notice a valid one for the purpose of satisfying the relevant statutory provisions?’ The tenants had made no attempt to complete core elements of the forms. The defects were not capable of rectification by interpretation, and the notices were invalid.
Pill, May LJJ, Rimer J
Gazette 23-Aug-2001, Times 19-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1277, [2001] PLSCS 191, [2002] 1 EGLR 55
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Sch 3
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Speedwell Estates Ltd and Another v Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
. .
Cited by:
Applied – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Cited – Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council v Total Fitness UK Ltd CA 18-Oct-2002
The landlord served a notice to quit. It gave a date calculated by reference to the notice period, but then stated the date on which it expired. Under the rule in Lester, the notice period only began on the day after service, and that resulted in a . .
Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Cadogan and Another v Strauss CA 9-Feb-2004
The tenant served a notice under the Act, but failed to include a full list of the previous linked leases. The landlord said the notice was invalid.
Held: The error was not misleading. Such notices had to be viewed in the factual background. . .
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 . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Cunningham CA 23-Jul-2007
The elderly appellant claimed a non-shorthold assured tenancy. He had moved in in 1999, but had been given a rent book which described the tenancy as an assured tenancy. The now deceased landlord had himself occupied another flat in the building. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.147656
