000 02208cam a2200229 4500
001 ABS65417
008 020426n2002 000 0 eng u
035 _a(Sirsi) u117705
245 _aRavenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; Kasseer v Freeman
260 _c2002
490 _aEstates Gazette
_v[2002] 11 EG 156-162(7)
520 _aCA 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.
590 _aABS
650 _aASSURED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES (FORMS) REGULATIONS 1988
650 _aRAVENSEFT PROPERTIES LTD V HALL
650 _aWHITE V CHUBB
650 _aKASSEER V FREEMAN
650 _aASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
650 _aHOUSING ACT 1988 S20
690 _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942 _n0
999 _c70089
_d70089