Misha Nayak-Oliver gets possession claim struck out to stop single mother and children being made homeless

15 July 2025

The possession claim at Manchester Civil Justice Centre (pictured) was struck out. Credit: 4kclips / Shutterstock.

The possession claim at Manchester Civil Justice Centre (pictured) was struck out. Credit: 4kclips / Shutterstock.

 

Garden Court North pupil Misha Nayak-Oliver successfully defended a possession claim brought against her client, ‘Ms A’, at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

Ms A is a single mother with ongoing mental health challenges. She has two children, one of whom is disabled, and the family are reliant on benefits. If evicted, the family would be made homeless.

Misha got the possession claim brought under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 struck out. She also successfully sought a costs order in favour of the Defendant, which was strongly opposed by the Claimant’s legal representative.

 

Section 21 notice requirements

At the hearing, the Claimant’s legal representative said that prior to service of the s.21 notice, the landlord had contacted the authorised scheme holding the tenant’s deposit, the authorised scheme provided information to the tenant relating to the deposit, and repayment of the deposit had been instigated. It was argued that it was for the tenant to then liaise with the authorised scheme to obtain the deposit.

On behalf of the Defendant, Misha made detailed submissions setting out that there are strict statutory requirements in s.213(5) (read with s.213(6)) of the Housing Act 2004. It is the landlord who has received a tenancy deposit who must give the tenant information relating to the authorised scheme applying to the deposit, as well as compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme. It is the landlord, and not a third party, who must comply with the mandatory requirement. The authorised scheme is a third party. The Claimant failed to comply with s.213(5) and s.213(6). As s.213(6) was not complied with, no s.21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as s.213(6)(a) is complied with, pursuant to s.215(2) Housing Act 2004. Therefore, the Claimant was unable to give notice under s.21 of the Housing Act 1988.

The Court agreed and the possession claim was struck out. The Claimant is to pay the costs of the Defendant.

 

Misha was instructed by Sarah Guest at Citizens Advice Bury & Bolton.

 

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

News

News

Garden Court North ranked as leading set by Chambers and Partners for 2027

Garden Court North Chambers has been ranked as a leading set across five practice areas by Chambers and Partners for 2027.

News

European Court of Justice allows appeal to proceed in part in EU mission staff case

Garden Court North's Antje Kunst acted in a case with implications for the judicial protection of staff serving in EU security missions.

News

Tom Royston appears in breakthrough Upper Tribunal appeal of universal credit award and housing cost provisions

The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal on universal credit entitlement with significant implications for social security claimants’ access to justice.

News

Garden Court North ranked Top Tier Set by the Legal 500 for 2027

Garden Court North Chambers has been ranked as a ‘Top Tier’ set across four practice areas by the Legal 500 for 2027.