EXPERT: What this week’s Court of Appeal win by landlord means in practice
A landmark Court of Appeal case with potentially calamitous consequences has cleared up uncertainty about who has the authority to sign section eight notices and deposit protection certificates, explains the lawyer representing the winning landlord company.
David Smith (pictured) of legal firm JMW says if the firm had lost the critical case earlier this week, it would have made business largely impractical and led to tenants making huge numbers of deposit claims against their landlord or letting agent.
“Recent possession orders obtained and not enforced could have been appealed, existing possession orders would have collapsed – it would have had a big impact on landlords across the country…with potentially widespread bankruptcies as a result,” says Smith.
Instead, it was a significant victory as Appeal Court judges found in favour of the landlord in Northwood Solihull v Fearn & Ors, which centred on the Solihull branch of letting and estate agency Northwood.
It had served a Section 8 eviction notice on tenants Mr Fearn and Ms Cooke who argued that this, as well as a certificate for their deposit, had not been signed by two authorised signatories or by a company director in the presence of a witness, but by another company employee instead.
Smith says the ruling means that if you’re a corporate landlord or agent acting in a corporate capacity, your employees can continue to sign documents on your behalf.
Tea maker
“As long as the employee has the authority to do so, for example, a property manager – however, if your job is to make tea then you probably don’t.”
He adds that the Court of Appeal has effectively ruled that it’s up to Parliament to protect tenants with laws: “It’s not for lawyers to come up with tricks to make it more difficult for landlords.”
The tenants have now sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court although Smith doesn’t think the Appeal judges will give permission and expects that a section 21 will be served.
Reaction
Timothy Douglas, (pictured) Head of Policy and Campaigns, at trade body Propertymark says: “The decision by the Court of Appeal brings much needed clarity to a long-disputed area of the law and is a victory for common sense, which agents will welcome.
“The retrospective judgement from the High Court dangled the possibility for ramifications for the sector with a significant number of claims against agents. Due to the potential implications, Propertymark was pleased to contribute to the costs of the appeal by the landlord.
“The judgement does however go much wider and the same rational will surely apply to virtually every notice prepared for a corporate landlord, from Section 21 Notices to rent increase notices and even notices to quit.”
Watch David Smith talking more about the case.
Read the judgement in full.
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – EXPERT: What this week’s Court of Appeal win by landlord means in practice | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: EXPERT: What this week’s Court of Appeal win by landlord means in practice
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’