On the NLA Section 21 Eviction Notice, after the eviction date, there is a sentence which states "OR after the last day of the period of your tenancy which expires next after the end of two months from the date of service of this notice to you". Am I correct in assuming that even if the Landlord has filled in an incorrect date on the Eviction Notice, the fact that these words are included means that courts have on previous occasions held the notice to be sufficient to save a notice from being invalid due to an incorrect date being specified.

Your quote from NLA's version of Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession is an overcomplicated, almost nonsensical sentence to say the least -and particularly so for the layman tenant to whom it will likely be served. It is a very clumsy example and uses a legal-styled 'confuse-speak' to explain away termination procedure/timing post-fixed term (statutory periodic). There are better versions out there. It is possible to get familiar with exactly what is meant in this form but it takes some interpretation and I think it would defeat most tenants. Or bore them into submission. The English language can work much better than that and I have seen clear examples of what the tenant needs to know. Nope, I don't think the writer need apply for the 'Plain English Awards' any time soon.
Given NLA puts its name to this format, might I suggest you put your question to them in regard to 'incorrect dates?' There is some fairly recent 'case law' out, however, should you feel so inclined (9th Dec 2013) which may help reassure you if you have already issued a 'faulty' S21 during a statutory periodic (Spencer-v-Taylor (2013) EWCA Civ 1600 - it 'googles' easily enough, I just tried it!
NLA’s version should also state what type of S21 it is and the case I mention is a good example of why; issued to confirm the end of a fixed term: it should state it is a S21 (1) (b); issued to confirm the end of a statutory periodic tenancy: it's a S21 (4) (a). I have never thought such detail should be casually left out; the document served should reflect the circumstances; they are different documents raised from different parts of the Housing Act. Who needs a legal challenge about rudiments (such as was so with Spencer-v-Taylor?) Believe it or not, the judge ruled in favour of the Landlord in this case- I know, get the Cava out!- thus re-calibrating existing precedent but..we all know pedantic judges are out there when the mood so takes them .... don’t mention lost British Airways baggage, whatever you do!
On a related issue,I find the the NLA AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) similarly flawed. In regard to ‘termination,’ it lacks clarity, detail, even accuracy last time I looked, albeit that was probably toward a year ago now.
I also note with regret that the AST chooses to omit a whole raft of really useful 'coverall' clauses that can better protect the Landlord in established areas of historic 'grief.' Most especially, perhaps, in regard to respectful use of the Property such as a clause where all parties agree a tradesman will be used to repair or replace tenant-damaged items during the term (I never have been keen to wait for a ‘someday-soon’ retrospective fight over fund retention from their deposit; they pay up when I need to pay up and they get their deposit back in full which, is less confrontational in practice.) As a result, I drafted and copyrighted my own AST which is easy to understand, I am told and so, appears to be working well, I did put my suggestions to NLA re the website AST version about 8 months ago (just a few modest changes, so as not to frighten the horses, mind!) but, not for the first time, very regrettably, NLA did not acknowledge. Hey hum! Hope you have better luck and at least yours will be in a phone call to the helpline. I think they will help give you the reassurance you are after in your situation. Hope so and all the best.
………………………….. Peter

ps. How nice if this website would allow you to paragraph.


Hi 132728, I agree and share your points ref the NLA's AST and Section 21 forms. I have not used them for some time for exactly the same reasons that you have stated!

I have hardly ever issued a section 21 notice but a month or so ago, I issued the NLA notice under section 21 to a tenant. He has been seeking help to find alternative more appropriate (sheltered) accommodation and contacted a local organisation called "Framework". They said that my notice was invalid because it was not issued on a form 6A. Although they are helping him they told me "Just to let you know that if using a section 21 notice it falls under the Deregulation Act 2015 because his tenancy started after the 1st of October 2015 therefore, it does have to be on the form 6A. "
Does anybody know what a form 6A is and why NLA don't have it as the standard?
Thank you
Judy Ekins


Dear Ms Ekins, thank you for your feedback. You will find the Section 21 Form 6A within the NLA Forms section of the website at https://www.landlords.org.uk/services/nla-lettings-and-property-management/forms. You will need to login into the website using your member number and security code to download it. The notice can only be used in relation to an Assured Shorthold Tenancy in England. If you are serving one for the first time, please do read the relevant section of the NLA Online Library to make sure you have given your tenants the required prescribed information. Best regards, Meurig Lloyd, Member Services Manager 


For all readers. Please note this topic is an old thread. There have been a number of changes to the Section 21 possession route over the past few years. For up to date guidance please refer to the NLA Online Library. We also offer a one day Possession Course, including case studies, tactics and an opportunity to go through all the forms - https://www.landlords.org.uk/advice-support-tips/courses/possession - if you are looking to follow the Section 21 possession route for the first time NLA members can also call the NLA Telephone Advice Line for guidance on specific issues. Best regards, Meurig Lloyd, Member Services Manager