The requirement to provide a landlord’s name and address on legal notices such as demands and tenancy agreements is potentially a contentious issue for property managing agents and letting agents. The two main provisions that deal with this area are sections 47 and 48 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the Act”). The distinction between the two is important as is the need to understand what those provisions actually require.

We have recently seen a large number of examples of demands and tenancy agreements containing notices purportedly under these sections but which are invalid because of a misunderstanding of what the statutory provisions require. You may already be aware of the case from 2012 of Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC) which confirmed what was required of the landlord under sections 47 and 48. We thought that a helpful reminder by way of our legal update would be of benefit to our subscribers.

A landlord’s obligation

Section 48 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 requires landlords to provide an address, which must be in England or Wales, at which notices may be served on them by their tenants or leaseholders. A failure to properly comply with this provision results in rent or service charges demanded by the landlord is considered not due (despite demand) until the landlord does provide their address. The effect of that is that the landlord is prevented from enforcing recovery of any rent or charges until the correct notice is served.

Section 47 of the Act requires that the tenant must be provided with the name and address of the landlord on any demand for rent or other sums due under the terms of the tenancy or long lease. If, however, the landlord’s address is not in England and Wales, an address in England or Wales must be given. The failure to provide such information in the demand will, once again, prevent the landlord from enforcing the amount demanded, whether rent or service charges, as by virtue of section 48 that sum shall be treated as not due until a demand containing a compliant section 48 notice has been served.

The decision in Beitov in 2012 dealt with the question of whether it was sufficient for the purposes of section 47 to provide, as the requisite address in the notice, an address of the landlord which was no his/its actual address but, in this case, care of the property managing agent’s address. In other words an address at which the landlord was not resident, did not carry on business or the registered office of his company.

It was held that the address required in the section 47 notice must include the landlord’s actual address whether that be his home address, registered office or his usual place of business. None of these were the managing property agent’s address. The Tribunal Judge said that the purpose of section 47 is not to give the tenant information of where the notices can be served, but to confirm the landlord’s identity. Therefore, merely providing a name at an irrelevant address will not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 47.

Where does this leave landlords

Whilst we have seen only a handful of disputes based upon non compliant section 47/48 notices contained within agreements or demands it remains that it is a real issue and one that could see your clients, at best, experience a delay in recovery of charges or rent due whilst the error is resolved and demands re-served or, at worst, experience such a delay and waste costs on failed litigation.

The decision of Beitov stands as a clear example that the if you get this wrong the Court or Tribunal will not help you.

It would be wise therefore to periodically check that the information provided on your standard documents and demands relating to the identity and address for the landlord is up to date and contains the appropriate address for the landlord.

If in doubt, we are more than happy to discuss about this matter further.

For more information, please contact Kevin Lever at Kevin.Lever@kdllaw.com or on 01435 897297.

Disclaimer

This legal update is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of KDL Law or by KDL Law as a whole.

If you have received this update in error or wish to unsubscribe from future updates then please email us at info@kdllaw.com.