York and another v Casey and another
York and another v Casey and another
- 1998
- Estates Gazette [1998] 30EG 110-113(4) .
CA 16 February 1998. On 6 September 1996 agents, acting for the plaintiffs, offered an assured shorthold tenancy to the second defendant for a term of six months from 28 September. A standard form s20 notice was enclosed showing the termination date as 6 September and the names of both plaintiffs as the landlords. A tenancy agreement showed only the first plaintiff as the landlord and was not signed by the defendants. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings for possession following service of a s21 notice where both plaintiffs were described as landlords. On the hearing of a preliminary point the county court judge held that the s20 notice was invalid. The plaintiffs appealed. "Held" the error relating to the termination date in the s20 notice was evident and the letter accompanying the notice made it clear that a tenancy of six months certain was contemplated. The reference to the first plaintiff only as landlord did not affect the validity of the s20 notice. Appeal allowed.
ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
BREWER V ANDREWS
DATES
DELTA VALE PROPERTIES LTD V MILLS
ERRORS
HOUSING ACT 1988
MANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
PANAYI V ROBERTS
SECTION 20 NOTICES
TERMINATION DATE
VALIDITY
CA 16 February 1998. On 6 September 1996 agents, acting for the plaintiffs, offered an assured shorthold tenancy to the second defendant for a term of six months from 28 September. A standard form s20 notice was enclosed showing the termination date as 6 September and the names of both plaintiffs as the landlords. A tenancy agreement showed only the first plaintiff as the landlord and was not signed by the defendants. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings for possession following service of a s21 notice where both plaintiffs were described as landlords. On the hearing of a preliminary point the county court judge held that the s20 notice was invalid. The plaintiffs appealed. "Held" the error relating to the termination date in the s20 notice was evident and the letter accompanying the notice made it clear that a tenancy of six months certain was contemplated. The reference to the first plaintiff only as landlord did not affect the validity of the s20 notice. Appeal allowed.
ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
BREWER V ANDREWS
DATES
DELTA VALE PROPERTIES LTD V MILLS
ERRORS
HOUSING ACT 1988
MANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
PANAYI V ROBERTS
SECTION 20 NOTICES
TERMINATION DATE
VALIDITY