ABSTRACT
Where some of the prescribed information has been omitted, the test which is to be applied in deciding if the notice is valid or not is whether the notice gives ‘the proper information to the tenant which will enable the tenant to deal in a proper way with the situation, whatever it may be, referred to in the statement of the notice’ (per Barry J in Barclays Bank Ltd v Ascott [1961] 1 WLR 717). If it does not, then it will not be valid. This test was subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Tegerdine v Brooks (1977) 36 P & CR 261, Morrow v Nadeem [1986] 1 WLR 1381 and Bridgers v Stanford [1991] 2 EGLR 265. This is an objective test which involves comparing the form served with the prescribed form and identifying any differences between them. If there are differences, then the court must consider whether the two notices are still substantially alike and a difference can only be ignored if the information in the notice is the same as that contained in the prescribed form. The central question is whether a reasonable recipient would have been misled by the notice served.
