Tenancy Confusion


I write regarding the Benchmarks article regarding accelerated possession proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (see [2007] Gazette, 18 January, 31). Section 21(4) provides that in a possession notice where the tenancy is a periodic tenancy, the landlord must require possession 'after a date specified in the notice being the last day of a period of the tenancy'. Case law has shown that, if this date is incorrect, the landlord will not succeed in obtaining possession.



District Judge Hickman indicates that where a monthly periodic tenancy arises after the end of a fixed term which began on the 15th of the month but where the rent is payable on the 1st, the section 21 notice must expire on the last day of the month rather than the 14th. This seems to contradict the 2005 decision of Daynes v Hall and Thorpe from District Judge Addlestone in Dewsbury County Court. Here the same point arose, and the defendant's case was that the periodic tenancy ran from the date when rent was paid, not the date of expiry of the fixed-term tenancy.



However, the judge is reported as saying: 'It is asserted by the defendant that [section 5(3)(d)] means that the date of commencement of the tenancy is converted to the date when rent is payable. My view is that [the section] does not mean that. [It] means that the periods of the [statutory periodic] tenancy are the same as the period when rent was payable, so if rent was payable monthly, it is a monthly tenancy; if rent is payable three-monthly, it is a three monthly tenancy.'



I am concerned that there seems to be this contradiction of views, particularly in view of the importance of getting the date in the notice correct.



Tessa Shepperson, TJ Shepperson, Norwich