CA, 22 January 2002. Respondent landlords in both cases claimed possession of flats occupied by appellant tenants on the ground that the tenants held assured shorthold tenancies. The tenants claimed that their tenancies were fully assured as no form 7 notice (as prescribed by the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988) had been served on them before their tenancies began, as required by the Housing Act 1988 s20. Both tenants argued that their form 7 notices had been invalid because in the first case the landlord's name had been omitted from the relevant box on the form; in the second case because the wrong name and address had been given for the landlord. In both cases, the name and address of the landlord's agent had been given. Judgment in both cases found the notices to be valid. In the first case, comparison with a fully assured tenancy was made where no obligation to give the landlord's name and address exists, and form 7 was deemed to be ambiguous in respect of whether a landlord's name and address has to be given, where the landlord's agent had signed for the landlord. In the second case, the tenant was judged not to have been prejudiced by the error as the agent's details were given. Both tenants appealed. "Held", appeals were dismissed. Both notices were valid, one judge dissenting in respect of the notice in the second case. Although form 7, correctly read, required the details of both agent and landlord to be given, an omission of the landlord's details would not invalidate the purpose of a s20 notice, namely to inform the tenant before entering a tenancy of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy and its limited security of tenure. The same criterion applies in the second case where the wrong details were given for the landlord.