Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; Kasseer v Freeman
Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; Kasseer v Freeman
- 2002
- Estates Gazette [2002] 11 EG 156-162(7) .
CA 19 December 2001. Three appeals concerned with the validity of s20 notices served under the Housing Act 1988, and whether each notice was in a form substantially to the same effect as that prescribed by the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988. In "Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall" the appellant tenant (H) appealed against proceedings for possession by the respondent landlord (R) and the decision that the s20 notice correctly stated the start date of the term of the proposed tenancy. "Held": the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the notice was 'substantially to the same effect' as the prescribed form despite giving the wrong start date of the tenancy. In "White v Chubb" the appellant landlord (W) appealed against a decision dismissing W's claim for possession and the decision that the s20 notice was invalid. "Held": appeal allowed on the grounds that the notice when read by a reasonable reader fulfilled the function it was meant to perform despite the mistaken end date of the tenancy. In "Kasseer v Freeman" the appellant tenant (K) appealed against possession proceedings by the respondent landlord (F) and the decision that the s20 notice was valid when its supplementary guidance notes contained errors or differences when compared to those prescribed by the regulations. "Held": appeal dismissed on the grounds that s20 notice still conveyed to the tenant the substance of the prescribed form despite its errors.
ASSURED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES (FORMS) REGULATIONS 1988
RAVENSEFT PROPERTIES LTD V HALL
WHITE V CHUBB
KASSEER V FREEMAN
ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
HOUSING ACT 1988 S20
CA 19 December 2001. Three appeals concerned with the validity of s20 notices served under the Housing Act 1988, and whether each notice was in a form substantially to the same effect as that prescribed by the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988. In "Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall" the appellant tenant (H) appealed against proceedings for possession by the respondent landlord (R) and the decision that the s20 notice correctly stated the start date of the term of the proposed tenancy. "Held": the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the notice was 'substantially to the same effect' as the prescribed form despite giving the wrong start date of the tenancy. In "White v Chubb" the appellant landlord (W) appealed against a decision dismissing W's claim for possession and the decision that the s20 notice was invalid. "Held": appeal allowed on the grounds that the notice when read by a reasonable reader fulfilled the function it was meant to perform despite the mistaken end date of the tenancy. In "Kasseer v Freeman" the appellant tenant (K) appealed against possession proceedings by the respondent landlord (F) and the decision that the s20 notice was valid when its supplementary guidance notes contained errors or differences when compared to those prescribed by the regulations. "Held": appeal dismissed on the grounds that s20 notice still conveyed to the tenant the substance of the prescribed form despite its errors.
ASSURED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES (FORMS) REGULATIONS 1988
RAVENSEFT PROPERTIES LTD V HALL
WHITE V CHUBB
KASSEER V FREEMAN
ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
HOUSING ACT 1988 S20