tenant now nearly 8 weeks in arrears

speedtwin

With a s21(1)(b) you have to give 2 months notice as we all know (plus at least 2 working days for service). The last day of that 2 months cant be any earlier than the last day of a 6 month tenancy. (if it was 12 months it would have to be the last day of that)
You can still serve a s21(1)(b) if there is less than 2 months of the tenancy left and if so the last day of the 2 months notice it does not have to fall on a certain day (rent due/start day) where a s21(4)(a) for periodic tenancies does with some s21 forms.

I had a s21(1)(b) court hearing struck out because the judge didnt know his ar-- from his elb-- and thought the dates were wrong. (even though this judge sits on hearings 3 days a week which is worrying). I had to take it to appeal which was won in about 5 mins.

Hope this helps

Notlob

Speedtwin, I read it several times and it only dawned on me when reading your last post what you actually meant. Your earlier post is clear upon re-reading it. Obviously my brain refused to interpret the message correctly. Apologies.

I will say though that a section 21 can expire earlier than the last day of the tenancy if there is a break clause, save for the first six months. But you know this don't you!

Notlob

Premier_2

speedtwin wrote: »

tbs624 wrote: »

Read my full post again and in context (and note that it's generally considered good form to indicate (a) when you add your own text within a quote, and (b) that the quote is a partial one. That's what these do "..............")

Sorry i must have missed the guide lines on what is good form and what is not. Where are they exactly???

It's a tbs624 made up rule

It tends to get thown in when someone upsets the monopoly that tbs624 would like to have in posting replys on this forum.

As long as there is no intention to deliberately mislead what someone else has posted, then you have done nothing wrong.

In your post, the addition to the quoted text was quite clear by your use of red font - don't worry about it.

Far better to do that than post in the rather confusing manner as in post#39 :rotfl:

speedtwin

Notlob wrote: »

Speedtwin, I read it several times and it only dawned on me when reading your last post what you actually meant. Your earlier post is clear upon re-reading it. Obviously my brain refused to interpret the message correctly. Apologies.

I will say though that a section 21 can expire earlier than the last day of the tenancy if there is a break clause, save for the first six months. But you know this don't you!

Notlob

My apologies if if wasnt clear my grammer and spelling is not as good as it should be.

In regard to a break clause, no i didnt know that. I steer clear of them and have never been asked for one. If i had to use one i would find all the info i could about them the the implication of doing so.

bindiboo

littlemissmoney wrote: »

Maybe the tenant is thinking you haven't bothered to protect their deposit so you are probably a dodgy landlord who is going to try and keep it all. Therefore they will get out ASAP (after 6 months) and not pay the rent at the end so they recover their deposit. And I can't say I blame them.

Landlords who don't comply with the law just give good landlords a bad name. I no longer have any sympathy for your situation.

err yeah thanks for that.........general advise on here has been most helpful. I can assure you that hubby is no way a "dodgy landlord" and I am sure that everyone has made errors in the past and have learnt by them....for him he will be handing back to the management agent to deal with this property, when the tenants have vacated as certainly he doesnt want this hassle in the future.:rolleyes:

btw, the deposit he took does not even reflect half the mionthly rental for the property. The tenant owes £1200, so the fear of not getting their deposit back is outweighed by the amount they owe. imo

sooz

bindiboo wrote: »

err yeah thanks for that.........general advise on here has been most helpful. I can assure you that hubby is no way a "dodgy landlord" and I am sure that everyone has made errors in the past and have learnt by them....for him he will be handing back to the management agent to deal with this property, when the tenants have vacated as certainly he doesnt want this hassle in the future.:rolleyes:

btw, the deposit he took does not even reflect half the mionthly rental for the property. The tenant owes £1200, so the fear of not getting their deposit back is outweighed by the amount they owe. imo

Then he should certainly look to using a reputable agent. The deposit should be atleast one month's rent, usually 6 week's.

However, it doesn't matter how much the deposit is with regard to the deposit scheme. Even if he only took £5, it should have been registered.

Notlob

speedtwin wrote: »

My apologies if if wasnt clear my grammer and spelling is not as good as it should be.

In regard to a break clause, no i didnt know that. I steer clear of them and have never been asked for one. If i had to use one i would find all the info i could about them the the implication of doing so.

I find Break clauses a useful compromise to periodics as, in my view, they are better for landlords.

Your posts are fine. I see there is an issue building up with you and tbs624, although I am not aware of an issue with tbs 624 and me. However, if tbs624 has a monopoly, then maybe we can form a cartel :beer:


Notlob

speedtwin

ha ha sounds good to me:D :beer:

Loretta

First job get deposit in the scheme, you cannot give notice or serve them with anything unitl you have done that

Premier_2

Loretta wrote: »

First job get deposit in the scheme, you cannot give notice or serve them with anything unitl you have done that

Not quite true. Only a s.21 notice is invalid if the deposit isn't protected when it should be