Relief from forfeiture

Applications for relief

An application for relief from forfeiture can be made:

•
as a free-standing claim for relief, in which case Form N5A with attached particulars of claim will be required—see Precedent: Particulars of claim for relief against forfeiture
•
as a counterclaim in the landlord’s action for forfeiture—see: Defence to claim for possession: right to forfeit denied; with counterclaim for relief against forfeiture: Atkin's Court Forms [134]
•
as a CPR Part 23 application in the landlord’s action—see: Application notice in possession action for relief from forfeiture: Atkin's Court Forms [135]

Relief is not limited to termination of leases, and is equally available for the ending of rights granted by licence provided they are sufficiently ‘possessory’ in nature.

Claiming relief from forfeiture when breach is rent arrears

The process for claiming relief from forfeiture varies depending on the nature of the breach. If a landlord forfeits due to rent arrears, where the application for relief is dealt with in the:

•
County Court, if the forfeiture is by:
1. ◦
  court proceedings, the application must be made within six months of the date on which

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

Court of Appeal on right to manage, strict procedural compliance and equitable tenancies (Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd)

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a right to manage (RTM) company’s claim notice was invalid because the company failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) as it failed to serve an equitable long lessee with a notice inviting participation (participation notice) before serving the claim notice. The Court upheld the Upper Tribunal (UT) (Lands Chamber)’s decision that a tenant of an equitable long lease during the ‘registration gap’ is a ‘qualifying tenant’ within s 75 2002 Act, provided that there is no legal titleholder of that lease. However, the UT had erred in holding that the failure to serve that qualifying tenant with the participation notice did not render the claim notice invalid on the facts of the specific case. Instead, strict compliance is required upon a proper interpretation of the statute, in particular ss 78(1) and 79(2). Written by Sophie Gibson, barrister at Landmark Chambers, junior counsel for the Appellant.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—7 August 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: analyses of Court of Appeal decisions dismissing an unmeritorious tenancy deposit claim and on the retrospective enforcement potential of the Building Safety Act 2022, an Upper Tribunal decision on recovering housing benefits paid to a landlord, and a further Court of Appeal decision relating to the definition of ‘stepchild’ under a Council’s tenancy succession policy.

189th Practice Direction update—online claims—in force 12 August 2025

The 189th Practice Direction (PD) update comes into force on 12 August 2025. This update introduces changes to amend CPR PD 51R (the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot (OCMC) and CPR PD 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot). The amendments to CPR PD 51R will enable cases in the OCMC to remain online after a ‘Notice of Change’ is filed by a defendant’s legal representatives and make other minor changes. The amendments to CPR PD 51ZB are to remove paragraph 8.6 (relating to discontinuance), as was intended to be part of 184th Practice Direction update, but which was omitted in error.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News