Occasionally the law throws up a situation that, although technically correct, can cause practical chaos. The Civil Procedure Rules allow courts some degree of discretion, but that discretion disappears when a rule is mandatory or a piece of legislation is framed in such a way that it has to be followed to the letter. One example is the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 covering the eviction of tenants, which many landlords have stumbled over. And it is all because of one little word.

For some years now, the rental market has enjoyed a considerable period of stability thanks to the introduction of the concept of Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs). These provide a minimum letting period for the tenant of six months with the ability for the landlord to evict the tenant after that period without giving a reason, such as rent arrears or misbehaviour, provided certain detailed rules are followed. Among other things, these require a minimum of two month’s notice being given to the tenant. This is fairly straightforward where the notice is served during the contractual period of the tenancy. It is notices served after that period has come to an end where it all goes horribly wrong.

Take an AST for six months that has expired. The tenant has not left the property and is still paying rent. By law he ceases to be a contractual tenant and becomes a different creature: a periodic tenant. While two months’ notice is still required to evict him, the Housing Act is very specific as to how that notice should be drawn. It says that the tenant should be informed by the landlord that possession of the property is required “after the date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy”.

There are two potentially problematic elements to this. The first is the expression “the last day of a period of the tenancy”. A “period of the tenancy” reflects the basis on which rent is paid – for example, weekly or monthly – and “the last day” reflects the last day in that period. Let’s say the rent is payable monthly on the 24th of each month: the “last day of a period of the tenancy” would be the 23rd of the following month. That is relatively straightforward, although some landlords still get it wrong.

The bigger problem is that simple word “after”. A case in 2003, which reached the Court of Appeal, fully illustrates the dilemma. The fixed term of an AST came to an end in March 2000. Thereafter the tenants continued as periodic tenants. The tenancy, copying the provisions of the original tenancy agreement, ran from the 4th of each month to the 3rd of the following month. A notice was served stating that the landlord required possession of the premises “on” the January 4, 2003; the notice was given on the October 24, 2002, comfortably more than two months.

The Court of Appeal decided that the Housing Act requires a notice to specify a date that would be the last date of the period of the tenancy - in this case January 3, 2003 – and not the date “on” which possession is required. Therefore, even if a landlord gives several months’ notice, unless it is made clear that possession is required “after” the last day of the tenancy the notice will be invalid. You have to hit the date right on the nail. And be warned: some of the generic printed forms of notice that landlords use still have the word “on” instead of “after”.

I would not mention this intriguing little matter if it were not for the fact that over 70 per cent of the claims for possession of ASTs that we get in our court have to be dismissed because of that little error. The landlord then has to start the process all over again with a fresh and accurate two month’s notice. A trip to a local solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau ought to ensure that notice is given accurately, otherwise it might be something of a wait before the landlord can get his property back.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure