[2025] EWHC 2477 (Ch)

Another candid witness statement was made by Mr Wadley, who had been a tenant of his dwelling since 2011. He volunteers on various committees of Bron Afon. He says he likes living in his property and is happy there, and that he cannot fault his landlord.

On the issue of withholding rent, he says this.

“19.

If someone had told me verbally that I was entitled to a copy of the ECR and without it I did not owe rent, I would have investigated this fully. I would have looked it up online first. My wife and I also would have looked at the legislation directly. I think I then would have followed-up with the Claimant and asked for their take on it. I volunteer with the Claimant and so I would have asked people who I know there directly about the situation. If I was satisfied after my investigations that I did not owe rent, I would have stopped paying rent.

20.

I would feel a bit guilty and worried not paying rent and I would have kept the money to one side in case someone came back and said that I owed it. That is what I have done with the rent money I withheld in February 2025.”

In cross-examination he confirmed that he knew of the true position on 26 March 2024 but carried on paying rent because he did not want to risk eviction.

We find, that had Mr Wadley known of the true position, he would have carried out his own full investigation and would have asked his landlord about it, before even considering the withholding of rent. Such an enquiry would have brought forth the ECR immediately and Mr Wadley would not have withheld rent.

We also find that, on enquiry, Mr Wadley’s landlord would have told him that it was their position that he was obliged to pay rent notwithstanding late delivery of the ECR, and he would not have withheld rent without their agreement that he should do so.

That is in accordance with the facts behind his set-off claim. Although it is his case that he was entitled to set-off his repayment claim by not paying rent for subsequent periods of occupancy, he did not do that, until he was urged to do so by his own landlord in order to establish the facts for a test case. Even then, he did it only for a short period, which was not enough to cover his whole claim. This gives some support to our finding that he would not have withheld rent unilaterally, and without the full agreement of and reassurance from his landlord.

Mr Wadley was particularly anxious about the risk of eviction. We find that he would have regarded the withholding of rent as creating such a risk to an extent which he would not be comfortable with unless he had his landlord’s full agreement and consent to him doing it.

Therefore, we find as a fact that Mr Wadley would have paid his rent even if he had not been acting under a mistake. Even if he had known his legal rights, he would not have exercised his rights without positive encouragement from his landlord. They were under no obligation to give this encouragement. They did not in fact give this encouragement, except in respect of his rent in February 2025. They would not have given this encouragement, even if Mr Wadley had known his legal rights and told them his case on those rights. They did not do so when he in fact ran that case, ultimately successfully, in the action which produced the First Judgment on this point, in his favour. Mr Wadley would have paid his rent even if he had known the full facts and the legal arguments which were open to him as a result of those facts. He would have paid his rent even if he had known the true position in law, unless his landlords positively asserted to him that he did not have to.