Notice that Possesion.... Housing Act 1988?

Nicky321

My daughter has just received the tenancy agreement for a property which she is due to move into on Friday. Along with the Tenancy Agreement was a letter "Notice that Possession Might be Recovered of a Dwelling House Let on an Assured Tenancy" Under Ground 1 and Ground 2 of the Housing Act 1988, Schedule 2. What does this mean?

I have read it but its straight over my head.

Premier_2

It's basically a formality that should accompany all assured shorthold tenancy agreements.

Ground 1 refers to the fact that the property was either formally occupied by the LL or may at sometime in the future be required to house the LL (or spouse)

Ground 2 informs you that the property is subject to a mortgage.

Nothing to worry about usually

tbs624

Under the Housing Act 1988, amended by the Housing Act 1996, there are 17 different Grounds under which a LL may seek repossession of the property. Grounds 1- 8 are Mandatory and the rest are Discretionary.

Ground 1 lets you know that the LL (or the LL's spouse) may regain possession if they once lived at the property as their principle home and wish to do so again. Alternatively a "successor in title" can use this ground, if they were not party to the purchase of the property.

Premier is perhaps being less than upfront about Ground 2 - what is actually tells you is that if there is a need for the property to be sold with vacant possession, then the tenant will be required to go. The mortgage must have been taken out prior to the Tenancy being offered and the reason this is mentioned in the Tenancy Agreement is because if prior notice is not given to the Tenant then Ground 2 cannot be relied upon.

For either Ground the Tenant must be given at least 2 months notice to tie in with a rent period

Nicky321

So im right assuming that my daughter should be told prior to her signing the agreement if the LL or their spouse etc have any intentions of moving into the property? Therefore when she moves in on Friday on a 6 month contract she should be safe for at least the 6 months?

Incisor

Nicky321 wrote: »

So im right assuming that my daughter should be told prior to her signing the agreement if the LL or their spouse etc have any intentions of moving into the property? Therefore when she moves in on Friday on a 6 month contract she should be safe for at least the 6 months?

No, the opposite. The letter tells you that the tenancy is NOT assured if the LL or spouse change their minds. In this situation, there is nothing that can be done about ground 2, but i would not expect claim 1 to be raised - unless waivered to the end of the Assured term. That's my logic, rather than fact.

Nicky321

Incisor wrote: »

No, the opposite. The letter tells you that the tenancy is NOT assured if the LL or spouse change their minds. In this situation, there is nothing that can be done about ground 2, but i would not expect claim 1 to be raised - unless waivered to the end of the Assured term. That's my logic, rather than fact.

Ground 1: No later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice and (in either case) -
(a) at some time before the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of them occupied the dwelling-house as his principle home; or
(b) the landlord who is seeking possesssion or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, as least one of them requires the dwelling-house as his or his spouse's only or principal home and neither the landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them) nor any other person who, as landlord, derived title under the landlord who gave the notice mentioned above acquired the reversion on the tenancy for money for money's worth.

Its very over my head! why cant it be put in simple terms

tbs624

Nicky321 wrote: »

...Its very over my head! why cant it be put in simple terms

It can be, your LL/LA just uses an agreement with appalling outdated "legalese" terminology rather than one of the Crystal Mark Plain English Tenancy Agreements as recommended by the Office of Fair Trading and offered by LL Associations, Tessa Shepperson, RICS et al.

No tenant should sign something that they do not understand - do not take the LAs explanation of it -s/he acts in the LLs interest not yours as the Tenant. If you want advice on it send a copy to Shelter or ring them - their helpline 0808 800 4444 (7 days 8-8)You could also take it to a local law centre if there is one.

Premier_2

tbs624 wrote: »

It can be, your LL/LA just uses an agreement with appalling outdated "legalese" terminology rather than one of the Crystal Mark Plain English Tenancy Agreements as recommended by the Office of Fair Trading and offered by LL Associations, Tessa Shepperson, RICS et al.

No tenant should sign something that they do not understand - do not take the LAs explanation of it -s/he acts in the LLs interest not yours as the Tenant. If you want advice on it send a copy to Shelter or ring them - their helpline 0808 800 4444 (7 days 8-8)You could also take it to a local law centre if there is one.

Unfortunately the 'outdated "legalese" terminology' you refer to must be included as that is the exact wording of the relevant statute.

Notice must be given in writing of those grounds not later than the beginning of the tenancy and failure to use the them verbatim could jeopardise a LL's later attempt to recover his property using such grounds.

tbs624

Premier wrote: »

Unfortunately the 'outdated "legalese" terminology' you refer to must be included as that is the exact wording of the relevant statute.

Yes, we're agreed it's the wording from the Statute. As I said in another thread, it's helpful if you read my posts properly if you are going to specifically & personally respond to them: the point is that the language used for legislative purposes does not help Tenants to understand the terms within their tenancy agreements and it is in both sides' interests that obligations and rights under that agreement are clear.

Premier wrote: »

My understanding is that Notice must be given in writing of those grounds not later than the beginning of the tenancy and failure to use the them verbatim could jeopardise a LL's later attempt to recover his property using such grounds.

(words in red my own addition there)
Please show me where it is laid down that Notice of the possible use of these Grounds may only be effectively given within a Tenancy Agreement by directly quoting from the statute itself (ie in full legalese terminology)?

Premier_2

"Notice must be given in writing of those grounds"

Which words would you elect to use if not the ones stated?

As I said "failure to use the them verbatim could jeopardise a LL's later attempt to recover his property using such grounds."

Try not to get yourself so worked up, you'll do yourself an injury

dag_2

premier says

Notice must be given in writing of those grounds not later than the beginning of the tenancy and failure to use the them verbatim could jeopardise a LL's later attempt to recover his property using such grounds.

"must" - but only if the landlord wants to get you out in a hurry.

If you're wondering if this is a standard thing across all tenancy agreements, I can assure you that it's not. If you're wondering if this means your daugter is likely to get more security of tenure by pulling out of this one and looking elsewhere, the answer is yes she will.

Like Premier has said, it's probably nothing to worry about. However, if the landlord didn't see a need to get your daughter out quickly, he wouldn't have given the notice in the first place.