Smith v Wilson [1999]

Errors in a s. 21 notice, such as use of the wrong form and also the wrong date, are too serious for the court to be able to consider them effective notice.

The landlord served a notice of protected shorthold tenancy (s. 52 Housing Act 1980) on the tenant in May 1990, and the notice referred to the landlord’s intention to grant the tenant a fixed term tenancy of one year from 1st June 1990 to 31st May 1991. The tenant actually moved into the premises in July 1990, and the written agreement given to the tenant a month after that referred to a fixed term of one year commencing on 1st September 1990. The landlord brought possession proceedings relying on a s. 21 notice.
The judge made a possession order, holding that the May 1990 notice was substantially to the same effect as that prescribed by the relevant Regulations.

On appeal:
HELD: The County court allowed the appeal, as although an obvious or clerical error, or an error which did not mislead, would not invalidate the notice, all other errors were fatal. He held that the erroneous date on the notice was a serious mistake, not just a slip of the pen. The use of a protected shorthold form was also a serious error that was likely to confuse the tenant, and something like that could not be countered by the court. These errors, individually and cumulatively, meant that the notice was not substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form. The possession proceedings were dismissed.

Smith v Wilson [1999] June 8, Stoke County Court