The court was asked as to the validity of a section 24 notice. In his notice the landlord had stated that he would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy. The tenant failed to serve a counter-notice but then contended that the section 24 notice was invalid because it omitted some of the notes on the prescribed form. The relevant regulations permitted that notice to be as prescribed or ‘substantially to the same effect’.
Held: The omissions were immaterial because the notes in question were made irrelevant by the landlord’s stated willingness to accept the grant of a new tenancy.
Judges:
Roskill LJ
Citations:
(1977) 36 P and CR 261
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.471971