Q&As

If a section 42 notice has been ineffectively served, is the tenant still liable for the costs of the landlord?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Desmond Kilcoyne
Published on LexisPSL on 07/11/2018

The following Property Q&A produced in partnership with Desmond Kilcoyne provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • If a section 42 notice has been ineffectively served, is the tenant still liable for the costs of the landlord?

If a section 42 notice has been ineffectively served, is the tenant still liable for the costs of the landlord?

As a general rule, where a notice is given under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993), then the tenant by whom it is given will be liable—to the extent that they have been incurred by any relevant person in pursuance of the notice (eg the landlord)—for the reasonable costs of that person: LRHUDA 1993, s 60(1). Furthermore, where the section 42 notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then the tenant's liability under this section for costs incurred by any person shall be a liability for costs incurred by them down to that time (reference should be made to the whole of LRHUDA 1993, s 60 for the exact ambit of these provisions).

LRHUDA 1993, s 60 therefore raises two questions where some mistake has been made when initiating a tenant’s claim for a new lease. Does a purported section 42 notice which is invalid for some reason fall within this rule (as ‘a notice’)? Alternatively, what happens if a valid section 42 notice is not properly served (or ‘given’)?

The answer to the first of these questions is that an invalid notice will be treated as ‘a notice’ where it

Related documents:

Popular documents