Alexa Thompson secures possession claim dismissal to keep single mother and children in their home

9 July 2025

The possession claim against Alexa Thompson’s client took place in the Manchester Civil Justice Centre (pictured). Credit: Marmalade Photos / Shutterstock.

Garden Court North’s Alexa Thompson secured the dismissal of a possession claim brought against her client in the Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

Alexa’s client, or ‘Ms C’, is a single mother, reliant on benefits, who, if evicted, would have been made homeless with her children.

The Claimant, Ms C’s landlord, had brought a possession claim on the basis of grounds 8, 10, and 11 of Schedule 2, Housing Act 1988, seeking possession of Ms C’s property on the basis of rent arrears.

The Claimant said rent arrears had accrued after Section 13 rent increase notices were served on her, but Ms C disputed this and said the notices were invalid.

Section 8 notice requirements

At Ms C’s hearing, Alexa argued that the notice served by the Claimant under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 was defective because it did not contain the requisite statutory wording that rent was ‘lawfully due’ from the tenant. Therefore, it failed to fully set out the substance of the ground relied upon, in line with Mountain v Hastings (1993) 25 HLR 427. In Ms C’s case, this lack of substance was particularly important due to a dispute over the existence of rent arrears.

In Mountain v Hastings, the Court of Appeal held that a notice may be valid where it contains wording other than the statutory wording: ‘provided that the words used set out fully the substance of the ground so that the notice is adequate to achieve the legislative purpose of the provision. The purpose, in my judgment, is to give to the tenant the information which the provision requires to be given in the notice to enable the tenant to consider what she should do and, with or without advice, to do that which is in her power and which will best protect her against the loss of her home.’ (433)

In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the Section 8 notice was defective because it failed to set out in full the substance of the grounds relied upon. In relation to ground 8, the notice did not state that the rent must be due both at the date of the notice and the date of the hearing – and that rent must be lawfully due from the tenant (435).

Applying those principles to the present case, the court held that the notice was defective and dismissed the possession claim against Ms C.

Alexa was instructed by Rosie Coan at Greater Manchester Law Centre.

For further information, please contact Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk