000			01961cab a2200241 4500
001			##L133796
008			060612n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133796
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aNotting Hill Housing Trust v Svetlana Roomus
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWCA CIV 407, 29 March 2006. Appeal by R against a decision that a notice served by N under the Housing Act 1988 s21(4) was valid. The notice stated that possession was needed 'at the end of the period of your tenancy'. R challenged the validity of the notice contending that it should have used the words 'after the end of the period of your tenancy' to comply with s21(4) and therefore be valid. R submitted that there was a conflict between the decisions in "Lower Street Properties v Jones" (CA, Abs56235) which stated that s21(4) required the notice to specify the date when possession of the property was required and in "McDonald v Fernandez" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1219, Abs67273) which stated that the statute required the notice to specify a date which was the last day of the period of the tenancy. "Held": appeal dismissed. There was no conflict between the cases. For the purpose of notices served under s21(4) the words 'at the end of the period of your tenancy' had the same meaning as the phrase 'after the end of the period of your tenancy'.
590			_aIKA200606
650	2	4	_aNOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST V ROOMUS
650	2	4	_aLOWER STREET PROPERTIES LTD V JONES
650	2	4	_aMCDONALD AND ANOTHER V FERNANDEZ AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aMANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1988 S21(4)
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES-BREACHING RESIDENTIAL LEASES
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/407.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77212 _d77212