Periodic Notice Defence Gardner v McCusker APPEALED NOW NULL & VOID


The following case has been appeal and over turned

SO CANNOT BE USED TO INVALIDATE THE S21
 
The Ruling deemed when a tenancy became a periodic the Landlord MUST have reissued prescribed information. The courts ordered possession claim invalid and Landlord ordered to pay compensation
 
Before you worry too much about the ruling below – Using such defence as this shall be eradicated when the derugulation bill comes into effect later this year, But until then this case prevails
 
  • Mr & Mrs Gardner let a property to Ms McCusker for a fixed term on six months in November 2009. There was a deposit of £600 which was protected in the MyDeposits scheme in January 2010.
  • In March 2013, a notice under s.21, Housing Act 1988 was served. Possessession proceedings were issued and were met with a defence and counterclaim contending that there had been, inter alia, no service of the prescribed information in respect of the statutory periodic tenancy.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

 
  • the result of this was that the s.21 notice was invalid and the landlord was liable to pay damages.
  • The ratio of Superstrike was that the statutory periodic tenancy was a new tenancy under which a deposit was deemed to have been paid. That was equally applicable to the present case. It followed that all the requirements in s.213 arose afresh in May 2010, i.e. when the statutory periodic tenancy arose.
  • The court ordered the deposit to be returned to the tenant and damages of 2 times the value of the deposit to be paid (so £1,800 in all).The claimants were to pay the costs of the claim andcounterclaim (to be set-off against some rent-arrears and outstanding costs orders from other – earlier – proceedings).