000			01854cab a2200313 4500
001			ABS59201
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u87914
041			_aeng
245			_aYork and another v Casey and another
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[1998] 30EG 110-113(4)
520			_aCA 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.
650			_aASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
650			_aBREWER V ANDREWS
650			_aDATES
650			_aDELTA VALE PROPERTIES LTD V MILLS
650			_aERRORS
650			_aHOUSING ACT 1988
650			_aMANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
650			_aPANAYI V ROBERTS
650			_aSECTION 20 NOTICES
650			_aTERMINATION DATE
650			_aVALIDITY
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c07/08/1998
999			_c55482 _d55482