Panayi v Roberts (1993)

The landlord granted the tenant a tenancy for a term certain of one year from November 6 1990 of a ground floor flat.  On the same date, the tenant was given notice of an assured shorthold tenancy stating that the tenancy was for a term certain of at least six months.
On 16th March 1992, the landlord served a notice requiring possession of the flat on 25th May, under section 2(1) Housing Act 1981. The county court judge made an order for possession.
The tenant appealed, contending that the tenancy granted on 6th November 1990 was not an assured shorthold tenancy because the notice of that date did not comply with the requirements of form 7 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988. 
There was a difference between the end given on the notice and that given on the tenancy agreement. The notice had been completed for the initial term of the tenancy with the start date as November 6th and the end date as May 6th 1991 whereas the tenancy agreement signed was to run until November 6th 1991. 

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that the prescribed form requires for completion a specification of the date on which the tenancy in respect of which the notice is served both commences and ends.  A notice which gives a wrong date is not "substantially to the same effect" as the prescribed form, but the use of ‘May' rather than 'November' in respect of the month of termination was not an evident error, but a perplexity. A form with an incorrect date is not substantially to the same effect as a notice with a correct date so that the appellant tenant was not granted an assured shorthold tenancy.
The tenancy declared to be assured not AST.

Citation: Panayi v Roberts (1993) 25 HLR 421