McDonald v Fernandez [2003]

Landlords who did not comply precisely with the specific requirements of s. 21 as the date specified on the notice was not the last day of one period but the first day of the following period were not entitled to possession.

The tenants were granted an assured shorthold tenancy for 6 months from 4th September 1999 to 3rd March 2000. After this period had expired, they remained in the property as statutory periodic tenants from the 4th of each month to the 3rd of the following month. On 24th October 2002 the landlords gave them a notice headed 'Section 21(4)(a) - Assured Shorthold Tenancy: Notice Requiring Possession: Periodic Tenancy', stating that the landlords required possession on 4th January 2003. The tenants unsuccessfully argued that this notice was not effective as the date specified was not the last day of a period, but instead was the first day of the following period.

On appeal:
HELD
The Court of Appeal held that the requirements of s. 21(4) Housing Act 1988 are "clear and precise"; the date supplied on the notice under s.21(4)a should be the last day of a period of the tenancy. Although this notice was only one day out, it was not written in the standard format (where possession is generally stated as required 'after' the date given on the notice) so did not comply with section 21(4)(a) Housing Act 1988. The Court held that although the notice would be easily understood to mean that the landlord wanted possession at the end of that period of the tenancy, it would have been simple for the landlord to comply with the requirements of s. 21 as he knew the exact dates of the periods. Therefore, as the notice did not meet the specific statutory requirements it was invalid and consequently the landlords were not entitled to possession at that time.

Citation: McDonald v Fernandez [2003] EWCA 1219