Prescribed Information and Ltd Companies?

Prescribed Information and Ltd Companies?

11:04 AM, 13th February 2017, About 5 years ago 16

Text Size

Bali v Manaquel Company Limited (County Court at Central London (HHJ Hand QC), 15th April 2016.

This to give people a heads up as many will get caught out when they let through ltd companies trying to escape s24.

A tenant was successful against the landlord’s claim for possession, because the Prescribed Information was not executed in accordance with section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. Section 44 written as below:

“A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company

  • by two authorised signatories, or
  • by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature”

Company landlords must now ensure the prescribed information is executed correctly although the Deregulation Act 2015 permits an agent to sign on its behalf.

Joel



Comments

by Colin McNulty

8:08 AM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

Oh I see, you're saying that the landlord's signature actually forms part of the Prescribed Information, rather than being required just to validate delivery of it.

So what we're saying is that the Prescribed Information has to be signed by the Landlord or LtdCo Director, and has to be witnessed, but that witness could be the tenant themselves?

by Ian Narbeth

10:03 AM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Colin McNulty" at "21/02/2017 - 08:08":

"So what we’re saying is that the Prescribed Information has to be signed by the Landlord or LtdCo Director, and has to be witnessed, but that witness could be the tenant themselves?"

Not at all. You are getting terribly confused. The Prescribed Information form has to be properly completed and include all the relevant prescribed information. It then has to include confirmation (in the form of a certificate signed by the landlord) that—

"(aa)the information he provides under this sub-paragraph is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief; and

(bb)he has given the tenant the opportunity to sign any document containing the information provided by the landlord under this article by way of confirmation that the information is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief."

The form has to be given to the tenant and any relevant person (i.e. a third party who has provided the deposit). There is no requirement for the landlord's signature to be witnessed and it is bizarre to talk of the tenant being a witness to the landlord's signature.

by Gary Nock

10:38 AM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

And the Deregulation Act also allows for an agent to sign on the landlords behalf.

by Colin McNulty

12:39 PM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Narbeth" at "21/02/2017 - 10:03":

Thanks for the reply Ian, however the original post says that a tenant stopped their eviction because the prescribed information wasn't properly executed and states:

“A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company
- by two authorised signatories, or
- by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature”

So why are you saying that there's no requirement for the the director's signature to be witnessed?

Why is it bizarre for the tenant to witness that signature? I sign all my docs in front of my tenant and ask them to sign too in order to verify receipt / witness that.

by Ian Narbeth

13:59 PM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Colin McNulty" at "21/02/2017 - 12:39":

Colin
The Deregulation Act has made the whole thing moot. The certificate has to be signed by the landlord. The judge in Bali v Manaquel Company Limited treated this as "being executed by" and then found that because the form was not executed in accordance with s44 that the certificate had not been properly given. The point I made in an earlier post was that I thought the decision in Bali was wrong because s43 did not require this for contracts and the PIF is not even a contract. However, the Deregulation Act means that the form can definitely be signed by an agent (which would include a director).

To answer your second point. Witnessing a signature is not the same as "verifying receipt". If A and B enter into a deed where their respective signatures need to be witnessed you would never have B witness A's signature. This is because a party to the deed cannot witness the signature of another party to the deed (Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 516 at 519). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/execution-of-deeds/practice-guide-8-execution-of-deeds

by Romain Garcin

14:31 PM, 21st February 2017, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Narbeth" at "21/02/2017 - 13:59":

Ian, I think that the key here is that s.43 only states how contracts may be created on behalf of a company whilst s.44 states how a company may execute documents.

The requirement in the prescribed information is that the certificate must be signed by the landlord (and not just on behalf of the landlord), which is (not unreasonably) interpreted as meaning executed by the landlord. As such, the interpretation is that if the landlord is a company then the correct way for the company to sign is to follow s.44.

Note also that the Deregulation Act does not allow any agent to sign but only the very person who protected the deposit.


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER