Are you a landlord? Do you manage your properties through a limited company?- Or do you run your letting agency as a limited company?
The problem – for landlords and their agents
In Newsround #182 I reported on the case of Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Ors [2020] which confirmed that when a corporate landlord or letting agent signs a prescribed information form – the signature must be in accordance with section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
This means that it must be signed by either
- Two directors of the company, or
- A director of the company and the company secretary, or
- A director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
If this is not done, then the notice will be invalid meaning
- The landlord is unable to serve a valid section 21 notice, and
- The tenant can apply to Court for an order that the landlord (and also the letting agent, if it is the agent who has served the defective form) pay them up to three times the deposit sum as a penalty.
Which you will not want!
However, how can you guard against this happening? How can you be sure that one of your employees, unaware of this requirement, won’t just sign the form and not tell anyone? Which could mean problems further down the line when the 30-day time limit is up. For both the landlord and the agent.
What can you do to prevent this from happening?
The answer
David Smith of JMW Solicitors has now drafted a solution to help landlords and agents in this position and it is being sold by Landlord Law.
In fact, there are two clauses
- One for corporate letting agents for them to put in their agreements with their landlords, and
- One for corporate landlords for them to put in their tenancy agreements
Both authorise the staff of either the letting agent or the landlord to sign the forms on their employer’s behalf.
The clauses are now available for sale. Upon purchase, you will be sent an email with instructions and both the clauses – for the landlord and letting agent.
It will cost you £48 – but could save you a LOT of money! Landlord Law members get an automatic discount of 50% provided they are logged in at the time of purchase.
Tessa, is this quite right? It is important to understand that Northwoods were a landlord, not an agent. Following the Deregulation Act changes to the prescribed information the law clearly says that if the deposit is protected by the agent, the prescribed information can be signed by the landlord or the agent. The principle expressed in the Hilmi case and reiterated in Northwood was that signing under section 44 of the companies act was only needed where the document had to be signed BY that person and that person was a company. If the document could be signed on behalf of the company it did not require companies act signing. As the prescribed information when the deposit is protected by the agent can be signed by ether the and landlord, on on behalf of the landlord by the agent (a choice) then surely the companies act signing will not apply. If the landlord protects the deposit and the landlord is a limited company then signing must be in accordance with the companies act. The Northwoods case did not decide agents who are limited companies had to sign in accordance with the companies act. Northwoods were not an agent so it was not discussed.
The High Court got the law wrong for sure but it’s not relevant whether Northwood was a landlord or an agent. The High Court held that where a corporate party was signing the deposit PI it had to be signed in a corporate style. That argument would be just as applicable if an agent was to sign. This is why the case needs to be appealed and is being appealed. These clauses are a temporary measure to help protect agents and landlords in the meantime.