In the case of Hamer v Levy [2026] EWCA Civ 662, the Court of Appeal ruled on the appeal of a possession claim relating to section 21 notices that followed on from earlier errors in tenancy deposit prescribed information.
On 11 October 2019, Ms Hamer (the tenant) was granted an AST of 4 Belle Vue Road, Kingsbridge, Devon (the Property) by Hesther Levy (the landlord)and later in the month was emailed copies of a deposit certificate and document title 'Prescribed Information'. The prescribed information document was unsigned and contained a few errors such as the landlord's address and the date the deposit was made. The tenancy agreement also contained errors such as the tenant's telephone number.
On 12 April 2024, a letter was sent by the landlord's solicitors stating they were being instructed to seek possession of the Property. In this letter they enclosed a copy of the Deposit Protection Certificate and noted that the prescribed information was contained within the tenancy agreement. On 17 April they then served a section 21 notice. The tenant did not vacate the property within the two-month time frame and a claim for possession was issued.
An order for possession was granted on 5 August 2024 by District Judge Priddis who determined the section 21 notice was valid. The Court of Appeal ultimately agreed, as it considered that errors in the prescribed information had been corrected by virtue of a subsequent letter referring the Tenant back to the tenancy agreement, and to the extent that there were some minor errors in the tenancy agreement these were immaterial.
The case should have been, as the judge noted, relatively straightforward, but was made considerably more complicated by the fact that an Appeal was lodged and then struck out, rather than being dealt with by the normal procedure of determining whether permission to appeal should be given. This led to a second appeal of the strike-out and caused a great deal of court confusion.
Having reached the Court of Appeal, the issue that was identified as 'substantive' by Lord Justice Lewis was the validity of the section 21 notice due to the errors in the prescribed information. It was determined that although certain information was incorrect within the prescribed information and the tenancy agreement, in order to comply with Article 2(1) of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 the information contained needed to be 'substantially to the same effect'. Lord Justice Lewis concluded that the information was to the same effect due to the respondents' solicitors complying with section 213(6)(a) by sending a further letter dated 12 April 2024. The errors listed in the tenancy agreement were also of no material consequence, as the telephone number was incorrect but the email address was not and they effectively communicated through emails.
Lord Justice Lewis dismissed the appeal but also made quite clear that it was the wrong procedure to 'strike out' an unmeritorious appeal rather than refuse permission for it to go forward.
Although section 21 notices are no longer available due to the Renters' Rights' Act 2026, a wider point to take from this case is that certain minor errors, as long as they are rectified, will not invalidate a notice if the information is of no material consequence or is substantially to the same effect.
