The Appellant tenant in Spencer v Taylor [2013] EWCA Civ 1600 (our note here) has had permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused, on the grounds that it did not raise an arguable point of law.
This means that the Court of Appeal decision stands. Where an assured shorthold tenancy has had a fixed term and a statutory periodic tenancy has arisen, there is no requirement to use a s.21(4)(a) notice, or have a date of expiry at the end of a period of the tenancy. A section 21(1)(b) notice with two clear months notice is adequate.
Where a tenancy was periodic from the start, or where the tenancy provides for an initial fixed term, then a periodic tenancy thereafter (a contractual periodic) a s.21(4)(a) notice will still be required, I believe.
We should have a more detailed post on Spencer v Taylor coming along in a few days, as there was much about the Court of Appeal judgment that didn’t make a great deal of sense on first reading, but does with background.
I look forward to reading this background ! I shall take a great deal of convincing !!!
This makes a mockery of S21
There were clear legally defined sections for both (s.21(1)(b) & s.21(4)(a)
I hope they can appeal to European Court or use part of the Human Rights act to reverse this.
Not sure that convention rights would apply on this issue, I’m afraid.