Form 6A now corrected

by News Team

9:01 AM, 13th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Form 6A now corrected

Make Text Bigger
Form 6A now corrected

MHCLG have finally as of yesterday updated and corrected the wording of the Section 21 official document 6A seeking possession. This is after articles written by Giles Peaker  in Nearly legal along with behind the scenes communication. Click here to view his article.

Giles wrote detailing the mistakes saying: “Form 6A is prescribed by statute. The wording of Form 6A is set out in regulations, most recently The Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I say most recently, because there has been no statutory instrument to bring into effect the changes that MHCLG have made. None has even been laid.

“What this means is that the Form 6A on the site under ‘assured tenancy forms’ is currently not actually valid as the prescribed form and should not be used. Which, as problems go, is a corker. The form 6A in the Forms Regulations remains the prescribed form for use.”

On the 12th of August MHCLG wrote updating their notes to say: “On the 30th of July 2019, an incorrect version of form 6A was incorrectly uploaded. If you have downloaded the form 6A which was available between 30th July and 12th August 2019 please replace this with the correct form.”

The form is now safe to use again, click here to download, but Giles said: “Both the ‘How to Rent guide and Form 6A snafus have been corrected. It really shouldn’t be down to eagle eyed watchers like Rich Greenhill and David Smith to have to spot these things, though.”


Luke P

12:01 PM, 14th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 14/08/2019 - 02:51The legislation actually gives the forms themselves (not just a list of their numbers but shows each of the forms in full)...
Here's the amendment (allowing a slightly different form to that specifically shown in the above), which is also where I believe it went wrong by allowing civil servants in the MHCLG to alter it from that which legislative draftsmen painstakingly undertook in political neutrality...
The point I am making is that it *should* be the exact form (even though I got away with it) and certainly not worth the risk on regular basis/as part of your in-house admin. I very likely serve more than most and it's not really a system that needs to be automated.

Mick Roberts

13:00 PM, 14th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 14/08/2019 - 12:01Yes I've copied exactly to be safe.
I had to give two out today so wanted to be right.
And the usual Council Homeless section ringing tenant asking
Has he gave u Right to Rent? EPC? Gas certificate? Ready to wash their hands of it instead of tackling the real issue.
As I DON'T want these two tenants to go, I want them to sort their rent out.
When they not paying, smashing the house up, no answering phone, I want them to go.
If they ONLY not paying, that can sometimes be worked round as u know. With a bit of help & Guidance from DHP etc.

Michael Barnes

4:13 AM, 15th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 14/08/2019 - 12:01
Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 ( says
2. In these Regulations any reference to a section or Schedule is a reference to a section of, or Schedule to, the Housing Act 1988 and any reference to a numbered form is a reference to the form bearing that number in the Schedule to these Regulations, or to a form substantially to the same effect.

That says that it does not have to be the exact form, and if it contains the right words in the right order, then a judge should accept it as valid (e.g. one might use a large font if T is hard of seeing).

Luke P

10:58 AM, 15th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 15/08/2019 - 04:13
This very Statutory Instrument and clause 2 came up in the case I referred to. Although YMMV, the Judge decided it was there to allow the Govt. to alter the form actually shown in the legislation (as I mentioned before they went to the length of including each and every form in its entirety within the legislation itself) and that is what it meant by '...form substantially to the same effect'. Essentially it is not for you peasants to be messing around with at will! Obviously different Judge, different day who knows. Can you imagine if you kept the form exactly the same apart from a couple of minor 'tweaks', say, changing the number of the form from 6A to 6B (which doesn't exist) and altered the title from 'Notice seeking possession of a property let on an assured shorthold tenancy' to that of, say, Form 3: 'Notice seeking possession of a property let on an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy'. Would 'substantially' be considered more than 50% alterations?

TBH, I wouldn't mess around with even the possibility of having it thrown out by a grumpy Judge. Whilst we're all 'this side of the fence' and have the opportunity to do so, do it by the letter and don't give any wriggle-room.

Michael Barnes

14:51 PM, 30th August 2019
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 15/08/2019 - 10:58
The CoA judgement that sets out how judges should determine "substantially to the same effect" is Ravenseft v Hall; see

1 2

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?


How to triple your rental profit with HMOs