Requirments

Pre-Action

Pre-Court action Requirements – S.84A Housing Act 1985

1

Writing to the occupants explaining why it currently intends to seek possession and inviting a response from the tenant


Before issuing a possession claim under S.84A Housing Act 1985 the landlord:

a) should write to the occupants explaining why it currently intends to seek possession and requiring the occupants, within a specified time, to notify the landlord in writing of any personal circumstances or other matters which they wish to have taken into account. In appropriate cases, such a letter could accompany any notice to quit or notice seeking possession and so would not necessarily delay the issue of proceedings;

and

b) should consider any representations received and, if they decide to proceed with a claim for possession, give brief written reasons for doing so.
FAQ
Find Your Question Here

What is the effect if any of the above requirements are not followed by the Landlord?

The effects of not following the requirements above

Where do the requirements above come from?

The requirements above come from the ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords’ .

Unreasonably Failing to follow the requirements of ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords’ (The requirements above.

(a) an order for costs;

(b) an order adjourning the claim; or

(c) an order striking out or dismissing the claim (other than a claim based on a mandatory ground).

Case Example of Court Striking Possession Claim based on the Landlord’s failure to follow the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol: Case Reference: Southwark LBC V JSC (December 2017 / January 2018) Legal Action 28, County Court at Lambeth, 14 June 2017

In this case, the Court Struck out the Possession Claim brought by the Local Authority against the tenant on the basis that the Tenant was in the process of appealing a decision against the Housing Benefit Department, yet the Local Authority proceeded to issue the Claim against the Tenant. Further, the Landlord was found to have not communicated with the Housing Benefit department before issuing the possession claim against the tenant.