[2025] EWHC 2477 (Ch)

The witness statement of Ms Jones also gives details of the difficult circumstances in which she took an assured tenancy of her dwelling with Tai Calon in 2010. She says that tenancy gave her a sense of belonging and safety and it meant that her child had her own bedroom. She was also encouraged by her landlord to socialise with groups which it ran, such as a green space improvement project.

Ms Jones deals with the potential withholding of rent if she knew she was not required to pay in the following passage of her witness statement (in which she refers to her landlord as the Second Claimant), which was her evidence in chief:

“28.

Knowing what I know now about my ECR and my Property being or allegedly being unfit for human habitation would impact my decision to withhold rent. I would never withhold my rent unless I received written confirmation from the Second Claimant which stated that I did not have to pay it. This written confirmation from the Second Claimant would also need to explain why I don’t have to pay my rent and for how long I could withhold it.

29.

If the Second Claimant or their legal representative wrote to me and said something along the lines of “we have carried out an investigation and because of something we have failed to do you do not need to pay your rent” I would firstly check with my neighbours to confirm that they had received the same letter. I would do this to make sure that it was not a hoax. I would also need to call the offices of the Second Claimant to be certain that I need not need to pay my rent. It would need to be in writing before I would withhold my rent.

30.

Without this written confirmation from the Second Claimant I would never withhold my rent because I would fear that my daughter and I would be in a position again where we are facing homelessness. I would never do anything to jeopardise my tenancy, I keep my garden tidy and always keep noise down.”

She confirmed that position in her oral evidence, including her cross-examination.

We accept that evidence. We find as a fact that she would not have withheld her rent even if she had known that from 15 December 2023 she was entitled to receive an ECR and even if she had known that, as a result of her landlord’s failure to give it to her, she was not required to pay rent.

Mr Hopkins did not deal with this point in his witness statement (which was his evidence in chief) but he was cross-examined as to what Tai Calon would have done had confirmation been sought about the requirement to pay rent when an ECR had not been given on 15 December 2023. He said legal advice would have been sought. We accept that evidence. In this regard, it is relevant that these proceedings were commenced because the claimants had each taken legal advice and wanted declarations that contract-holders who had not been given ECRs were nevertheless required to pay rent.

We find that had Ms Jones known of the requirement to give her the ECR on 15 December 2023, and had she known that she was not required to pay rent until she had it, she would have raised it with her landlord, who would immediately have given the ECR to her. The inspection had been done, and the ECR had been in existence for nearly two years. It was easy to give her a copy. Her landlord was perfectly willing as well as able to give her a copy. It would have given her a copy at once. She would not even have considered withholding rent in these circumstances.

If she had asked her landlord about her legal rights, they would not have told her she was not required to pay rent. Their position, until the First Judgment, was that she was required to pay rent.