Regency Property Management (UK) Ltd v Aleksandrowicz and another [2025]
The recent County Court decision in Regency Property Management (UK) Ltd v Aleksandrowicz and another [2025] offers timely guidance for landlords, agents and property professionals navigating the increasingly technical landscape of possession claims. In this case, the court dismissed a possession claim after finding that the landlord had served a Section 21 notice in relation to an unlicensed HMO, rendering the notice invalid.
With the Renters’ Rights Act due to take full effect on 1 May 2026, landlords have a rapidly closing window in which they can still rely on Section 21 notices.
From 1 May 2026, the “no-fault” route to possession will be abolished. This means that any landlord who gets a Section 21 notice wrong now may permanently lose the ability to rely on Section 21.
The margin for error has never been smaller.
Background
Regency Property Management (UK) Limited (the “Claimant”) acquired and became the landlord of 112 Old Bedford Road, Luton, LU2 7PD (the “Property”) on or around 22 July 2022. Prior to the Claimant’s ownership, the Property had been licensed as a House in Multiple Occupation (“HMO”) until 13 March 2022.
The Property was managed on behalf of the Claimant by My Estate Luton Limited, who contacted Luton Borough Council upon the HMO licence expiring to request confirmation regarding a Temporary Exemption Notice (“TEN”).
On 9 January 2024, the Claimant purported to serve notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. At the time the notice was served, the Property was occupied as a seven-room HMO.
The Issues Before the Court
The central issues before the court were:
- Whether the Section 21 notice had been validly served, and
- Whether the Property’s HMO licensing status affected the landlord’s ability to rely on the notice.
Validity of Service
The Defendants argued that the notice was defective because:
- it was addressed jointly rather than individually; and
- it was delivered to a shared post box rather than to their specific rooms.
The court rejected these arguments, relying on Section 45(3) of the Housing Act 1988, which provides that the singular includes the plural. Service on one tenant therefore constituted good service on the other.
The tenancy agreement expressly permitted service at the Property, and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 supported the validity of service by delivery to the premises.
The court was satisfied that the notice had reached the tenants, and service was therefore valid.
HMO Licensing: The Decisive Issue
The Defendants submitted that, at the time the notice seeking possession was served, there were seven occupied rooms, and that the Property was an unlicensed HMO at the time of service of the Section 21 notice.
The Claimant argued that a TEN application had been submitted to Luton Borough Council, which would have suspended the HMO licensing requirement. However, the evidence relied upon to support this assertion was submitted late, after the hearing had concluded.
The court refused to admit the late evidence and applied the Denton criteria, finding that:
- The breach of disclosure obligations was serious and significant
- No good reason was given for non-inclusion of the evidence before the deadline
- Considering all circumstance, allowing the late evidence would cause disproportionate delay and prejudice compliance with court orders.
In any event, the court found that even if the late evidence had been admitted, it would not have demonstrated that notification had been “duly given” under Section 62(1) of the Housing Act 2004.
Email correspondence showed that the Council was unable to open the documents sent, and there was no acknowledgement or confirmation that the Council had received or accepted any notification.
In the absence of evidence of proper notification to the local authority, the Property was an unlicensed HMO within the meaning of Section 72 of the Housing Act 2004. Under Section 75(1) of the Housing Act 2004, no Section 21 notice may be given in relation to a shorthold tenancy of part of an unlicensed HMO while it remains unlicensed.
The Court’s Decision
The possession claim was dismissed. Although the Section 21 notice had been validly served, it could not be relied upon because the Property was an unlicensed HMO at the time of service.
This case serves as a clear reminder that a Section 21 notice served in relation to an unlicensed HMO will be invalid, regardless of whether service itself is otherwise compliant.
Key Takeaways for Landlords and Agents
- HMO licensing compliance is a strict prerequisite for serving a Section 21 notice
- TEN applications must be properly submitted, acknowledged and evidenced
- Courts will apply the Denton test rigorously, and late evidence is unlikely to be admitted
- Clear service provisions in tenancy agreements remain crucial and can avoid unnecessary disputes
We’re here to help
If you require advice on Section 21 notices, unlicensed HMOs, HMO licensing or possession claims, please contact our Real Estate Litigation team, who will be happy to assist. Call us on 0800 118 1500 or complete our form below.
Disclaimer
The contents of this blog or any other published by Talbots Law cannot be considered as legal advice. You should take no action without prior consultation with a qualified solicitor or legal professional. The contents of this blog refers to the process in England and Wales.
This blog was written by Simran Sandhu, Trainee Solicitor in our Dispute Resolution Team.