Success for Suffian Ali Hussain in the Court of Appeal in Hamer v Levy [2026] EWCA Civ 662, which provides an important reminder of: (i) The threshold for second appeals; (ii) The Court’s approach to technical defects in tenancy deposit prescribed information documents.
The appeal concerned a possession claim based on a pre-Renters’ Rights Act 2025 section 21 notice. The appellant tenant argued that defects in the prescribed deposit information invalidated the respondent landlord’s ability to seek possession, including:
💡 An incorrect landlord address;
💡 Phone number containing an incorrect digit;
💡An unsigned prescribed information form;
💡An incorrect deposit receipt date.
Relying on earlier authorities including Pease v Carter and Lowe v Governors of Sutton’s Hospital in Charterhouse, the Court of Appeal concluded that the information provided was still “substantially to the same effect” as that required by the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007. The defects were not substantive and did not prevent service of a valid section 21 notice.
The full judgment is available here: https://lnkd.in/eNGJZKKZ)
The Lexis case analysis is available here: https://plus.lexis.com/uk/document/?pdmfid=1001073&crid=3f7d039a-04b4-4c0a-8493-957514748e24&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews-uk%2Furn:contentItem:6JT2-TXN3-S4P4-B2P2-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=184200&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pddocumentnumber=3&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=_t5k&earg=sr2&prid=b4438550-0c8c-43e6-b1aa-7e5abb392e4a
Importance
The decision will be welcomed by landlords and practitioners involved in ongoing section 21 possession claims. The judgment confirms that the courts will continue to adopt a purposive approach when assessing compliance with the tenancy deposit regime. Minor errors in prescribed information, such as typographical mistakes, incorrect dates or the absence of a signature, will not necessarily invalidate a section 21 notice where the information provided is substantially to the same effect as that required by the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007, SI 2007/797.
For tenants and their advisers, the judgment illustrates the difficulty of relying upon purely technical defects as a defence to possession proceedings. The focus will be on whether any deficiency materially affected the information provided to the tenant, rather than whether the landlord achieved perfect compliance with every formal requirement. Challenges are therefore more likely to succeed where there are substantive omissions or inaccuracies that undermine the statutory purpose of the deposit protection regime.
Suffian Ali Hussain appeared unled for the successful respondent landlord, and was instructed by Jamie Dyson and Kirsty Dare from Scott Richards.
