A corporate landlord has won an appeal that had things gone otherwise, might had led to an avalanche of claims.

Northwood Solihull v Fearn & Ors has been subject of a long-running dispute that had reached in turn both the High Court and Appeal Court. It concerned the validity of a possession notice and receipt of deposit certificate on the grounds that strict rules on its signing had not been followed.

The landlord, Northwood Solihull Ltd had filed a claim for possession following service of a notice under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 based on rent arrears. But the tenants had challenged this, claiming notices and certificates signed by only one director or property manager were not valid. Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 laid down a strict protocol, they claimed. Two directors should have signed, or one but that signature should have been witnessed.

Although this case involved a corporate landlord, the signing of certificates by agents might also have faced challenge based on the decision.

The case was important, the Court of Appeal acknowledged, because ‘the practice of taking a deposit for an assured shorthold tenancy is almost universal in the private rented sector; it is important that parties know whether section 44 Companies Act 2006 applies to such notices’.

Northwood argued that it did not and that the law required no more than that such certificates and notices be signed by a properly authorised individual. The Appeal Court has now ruled in favour of Northwood.