Requirements of a section 22 notice are fact-specific

A notice served under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was not invalidated by a lack of detail when it identified that a landlord was in breach of covenant and that the breaches concerned disrepair and infestation (of which the landlord was aware). In Ata v Sinclair [2024] UKUT 423 (LC) a freeholder appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s appointment of a manager under section 22 of the  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. He argued that the notice served on him lacked detail, that it did not give a reasonable time to remedy the default and that the manager appointed had a conflict of interest. Under the Act the FTT may appoint a manager if a tenant can show that there is something wrong with the landlord’s management of premises and the appointment is just and convenient. Before making such an application the tenant must serve notice on the landlord (and anyone else with management responsibilities). Section 22 states that this notice must specify the grounds on which the tribunal will be asked to make the order and the matters that would be relied on by the tenant for the purposes of establishing those grounds. Where the matters complained of are capable of remedy, the notice should specify a reasonable time to take remedial steps. The appellant owned the freehold of St Mary’s House, London Road, Sheffield. The building was a former office block which he had converted to student accommodation let on long leases to investment purchasers. The appellant remained responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building in return for service charge. Initially the lettings to students were arranged by the appellant for the long leaseholders. However, in May 2022 that agreement was brought to an end by the respondent and 63 other lessees who instead appointed Cloud Student Homes to manage their lettings. Notice under section 22 was served on 23 December 2022. It gave 14 days to remedy the default.  It stated that ground one was that the applicants have no proper confidence in the proper management of the building by the appellant. The second ground was stated to be that the appellant was in breach of obligations in the lease. Particulars stated to be of ground one included: “The property is falling into disrepair” and “Infestation continues without resolution”. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) agreed with the FTT that to exclude the particulars because they referred to the wrong ground would be unfair. Further, the FTT was not at fault for not discussing the adequacy of the details given of the failure to repair and maintain as it had not been the appellant’s case that he had not known the case he had to meet. The question whether a particular notice achieves the purpose of informing a landlord of a tenant’s complaints is inevitably fact-specific. In a case where allegations of disrepair come as a surprise, more detail might be required, but in the present case the appellant was well aware of the complaints made. In the present circumstances, the notice did all that it needed to do and all that was required by the statute. Although the appellant contended that the period given by the notice was inadequate (especially given the holiday season) what is a reasonable time is fact-specific. Specific not only about the nature of the work but to the facts of the case, including the behaviour of the parties. In the present case, the appellant did nothing during the notice period, nor during the longer period before the application to the FTT, nor for some months after. Accordingly, he could not be heard to argue that the notice provided an unreasonable time to remedy the breaches unless he could show that it was impossible for him to do anything during that time. The UT also rejected the suggestion that the appointment was flawed because the appointed manager had a potential conflict of interest with duties to the FTT but also being a director of CSH. The FTT had not accepted that there was a conflict and, in the absence of elucidation before it, the appellant could  not complain about the absence of detailed consideration by the FTT. There was no substance to the appellant’s appeal. Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister