Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the notice was likely to serve the purpose, and it could be valid. There was not a two stage test of first determining whether there was an obvious mistake. The test was rather whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice was substantially to the same effect as the correct version in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the notice was not to set the terms of eth tenancy, because the tenancy did not yet exist, and was created by the tenancy and not by the notice, but rather and only to help the tenant identify which tenancy would be subject to these conditions.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, however, a detailed analysis of each decision is not a profitable exercise: the question whether a notice under section 20 is in the prescribed form or is in a form ‘substantially to the same effect’ is a question of fact and degree in each case, turning on a comparison between the prescribed form in Annex 1 and the particular form of notice given . . The question is simply whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice is ‘substantially to the same effect’ in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith;Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Tuckey
Citations:
Times 15-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2034, [2002] 1 P and CR DG22, [2002] 11 EG 156, [2002] 3 EGCS 127, [2002] L and TR 25, [2001] NPC 188, [2002] 1 EGLR 9, [2002] HLR 33
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1988 20, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 SI No 2203)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Clickex Ltd v McCann CA 26-May-1999
A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Manel and Others v Memon CA 20-Apr-2000
A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The . .
Cited – Roberts v Church Commissioners for England CA 1972
The court considered the nature of the habendum in a lease. Stamp LJ said: It is well settled that the habendum in a lease only marks the duration of the tenant’s interest, and that the operation of the lease as a grant takes effect only from time . .
Cited by:
Distinguished – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Applied – B Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others CA 22-Jan-2003
Notices were given which were incorrect.
Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors. . .
Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Cited – Ayannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167406