Summary
1. Valid service of prescribed documents is crucial for the enforceability of a Section 21 notice.
2. The recent case of D’Aubigny v Khan & Anor has reaffirmed the importance of correct document service.
3. Tenancy agreements should clearly state how documents and notices are to be served.
4. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is applicable to the service of prescribed documents.
5. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed, but the case is set for further appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Main Post
I recently had the privilege of sitting down with James Peterson, a seasoned property solicitor, to delve into the complexities of a recent landmark case: D’Aubigny v Khan & Anor. James’s insights have shed light on the critical importance of serving prescribed documents correctly when issuing a Section 21 notice. Here’s a recount of our enlightening conversation.
—
John: James, thank you for taking the time to discuss this case. Could you start by summarising the essence of D’Aubigny v Khan & Anor?
James Peterson: Absolutely, John. The case primarily revolves around the validity of serving prescribed documents before a Section 21 notice can be issued. Ms D’Aubigny, the tenant, challenged the validity of the Section 21 notice served by her landlords, the Khans, claiming she hadn’t received the necessary documents—namely, the Gas Safety Certificates, EPC, and the How to Rent guide.
John: That sounds like a common issue. How did the court address her claims?
James Peterson: The landlords had served the prescribed documents by post. The tenant argued that there was no clause in the tenancy agreement permitting service by post and that she hadn’t received the documents. The landlords countered by highlighting a clause in the tenancy agreement that allowed service via first-class post and referenced Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which generally permits service by post unless specifically prohibited.
John: What was the court’s decision on this matter?
James Peterson: The County Court judge held that the term ‘notice’ in the tenancy agreement included the prescribed documents. Thus, the service by post was valid. The judge also confirmed that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act applied, meaning the documents were considered served once posted, barring proof to the contrary.
John: So, the tenant’s challenge was dismissed?
James Peterson: Initially, yes. However, Ms D’Aubigny appealed. She contended that the prescribed documents aren’t explicitly authorised to be served by post under any specific legislation. The appeal judge reiterated that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act did apply and that the term ‘notice’ in the tenancy agreement could be interpreted to include the prescribed documents.
John: That must have been quite a relief for landlords. But I understand there’s more to come?
James Peterson: Indeed, the tenant has since appealed the judgment again, and the case will now be heard in the Court of Appeal. This means the outcome could potentially be overturned, adding another layer of complexity for landlords and letting agents.
John: Given this ongoing situation, what would you advise landlords and letting agents to do?
James Peterson: The best course of action is to ensure that tenancy agreements are crystal clear on how documents and notices should be served. If the agreement only specifies how notices are served, then it’s prudent to serve documents both according to the agreement and through additional methods like first-class post, recorded delivery, and hand delivery. Having tenants confirm receipt of these documents can also provide an extra layer of security.
John: It sounds like due diligence and clear communication are key here.
James Peterson: Absolutely, John. This case underscores the importance of meticulous compliance with procedural requirements. Ensuring the proper service of prescribed documents is not just a legal obligation but a critical step in safeguarding the enforceability of a Section 21 notice.
—
As James highlighted, the D’Aubigny v Khan & Anor case serves as a crucial reminder for landlords and letting agents to ensure their tenancy agreements explicitly state how all relevant documents should be served. This not only helps in maintaining legal compliance but also in protecting the interests of all parties involved. As the case progresses to the Court of Appeal, the property sector will undoubtedly be watching closely, ready to adapt to any new precedents that may be set.
John Smith
Be the first to comment