Kahlon v Isherwood [2011] EWCA Civ 602 (19 May 2011)

Kahlon v Isherwood [2011] EWCA Civ 602 (19 May 2011)

The Tomlin schedule did not comply with the statutory requirements for a valid notice under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1988, as it omitted substantive elements required by the prescribed form (Form 8), particularly those informing the tenant of the loss of security of tenure. Therefore, the tenancy created was an assured tenancy, not an assured shorthold tenancy, and the landlord could not obtain possession under section 21.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 602
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jasbir Kaur Kahlon; Defendant/appellant: Andrew Isherwood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Order for Possession
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Notice Requirements, Possession Proceedings, Validity of Notices, Security of Tenure
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notice Requirements Possession Proceedings Validity of Notices Security of Tenure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasbir Kaur Kahlon

Claimant/respondent

Andrew Isherwood

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tomlin order schedule constituted a valid notice under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1988 for converting an assured tenancy to an assured shorthold tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a notice in the prescribed form invalidated the creation of an assured shorthold tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The Tomlin schedule did not comply with the statutory requirements for a valid notice under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1988, as it omitted substantive elements required by the prescribed form (Form 8), particularly those informing the tenant of the loss of security of tenure. Therefore, the tenancy created was an assured tenancy, not an assured shorthold tenancy, and the landlord could not obtain possession under section 21.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for possession set aside
  • Case remitted to County Court for reconsideration on the basis that the tenancy was an assured tenancy