Tricks tenants get up to

franklee

clutton wrote: »

franklee - please quote one specific case in law which substantiates your S.O.D ideas ......

It is clearly established that a valid S21 remains valid indefinitely even after a tenancy goes periodic unless something is done by the landlord to make it invalid. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that not even you.

If a landlord makes a written request to a tenant then the tenant can choose to comply regardless of if the request is legally enforceable. The landlord can then hardly complain that the tenant did what was requested after the event.

However if it isn't legally enforceable the tenant can also choose not to comply.

In other words the tenant can rely upon and act on the landlord's instructions, but if he wants to do that he really needs them in writing so he can prove that's what he did,

scrummy_mummy_2

Clutton...just for future ref...if you serve a S21 to all your tenants as a matter of course, it is now (since Spril 2007 when the new tnenacy depoist nonsense came into force) not legally valid unless it is served AFTER the deposit is protected....so, in future, you will need to protect the deposit with DPS or Mydeposits THEN served the S21 making sure you date and time stamp it to be able to demonstrate in court, should you need to do so, that it was served correctly.
(source: Marveen Smith, Painsmith solicitors)

franklee

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

Clutton...just for future ref...if you serve a S21 to all your tenants as a matter of course, it is now (since Spril 2007 when the new tnenacy depoist nonsense came into force) not legally valid unless it is served AFTER the deposit is protected....so, in future, you will need to protect the deposit with DPS or Mydeposits THEN served the S21 making sure you date and time stamp it to be able to demonstrate in court, should you need to do so, that it was served correctly.
(source: Marveen Smith, Painsmith solicitors)

Hi scrummy mummy,

Yes you are quite correct. The S21 also needs to be served after the tenancy has started. Overall putting it in the tenancy agreement seems to be serving it too soon as it's being served on the tenant before they have signed the tenancy agreement, but I suppose it depends on the exact details of what is done when.

Do you still have access to Painsmith's helpline?

It'd be interesting to see what they say about a landlord serving an S21 and then telling the tenant not to worry you can stay on should you behave. The landlord is giving the tenant contradictory instructions by asking for possession on the one hand and telling the tenant they can stay on the other hand!

This means the landlord thinks that they can start possession proceedings any time after the S21 notice period expires yet at the same time the tenant can't leave without giving notice. Clearly this is nonsense IMO, a tenant can't be facing court for possession yet at the same time bound to remain as they didn't give notice.

A landlord giving contradictory instructions doesn't mean they can have it both ways Quite the reverse IMO, which is why the SoD relies on the tenant not being able to prove what was said and why a tenant should ask for confirmation of anything they rely on from the landlord in writing.

It would also be interesting to see what Painsmith say about a tenant acting upon an S21 notice by leaving when it later transpires the S21 was invalid. I'd be suprised if the S21 being invalid means the landlord can then claim a months rent payment as the tenant didn't give notice.

Still if anyone finds a way to have their cake and eat it please let me know It would be jolly useful.

scrummy_mummy_2

Hi Franklee....here's their homepage...http://www.painsmith.co.uk/
just ring their number. I use their tenancy agreement and the last time I updated it (when the new tenancy deposit scheme came I, because I use myDeposits and needed some update clauses to capture this, I just asked about the S21 situation because I'd heard her on the radio describing that there were some issues surrounding this and the new deposit schemes....I didn't ring a helpline number, they were pleased to help me though, but maybe that's because I am a customer!
However, I'm sure that they wouldn't be happy with telling the tenant they can stay if they behave but, in court, it'll about proving who said what to whom and in what context so (because it's all a civil matter) they'd probably just play by the book and rely on paperwork in my experieince.
Clutton is experieinced enough to know how to handle this anyway and won't (knowingly) tuck up her ex tenant.

franklee

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

Hi Franklee....here's their
homepage...http://www.painsmith.co.uk/
just ring their number. I use their tenancy agreement and the last time I updated it (when the new tenancy deposit scheme came I, because I use myDeposits and needed some update clauses to capture this, I just asked about the S21 situation because I'd heard her on the radio describing that there were some issues surrounding this and the new deposit schemes....I didn't ring a helpline number, they were pleased to help me though, but maybe that's because I am a customer!

Hi scrummy mummy,

Thanks for that, I do know their website and have contacted them before about other matters but of course that costs and I'm not paying them over this. I had thought from the conversation before that as a customer you had access to a free legal helpline from them (I think you rang up about something in the past, perhaps that was the deposit issue I'd recalled). Obviously as you do not have access to a free legal helpline then asking them is out of the question as it would cost.

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

However, I'm sure that they wouldn't be happy with telling the tenant they can stay if they behave but, in court, it'll about proving who said what to whom and in what context so (because it's all a civil matter) they'd probably just play by the book and rely on paperwork in my experieince. Clutton is experieinced enough to know how to handle this anyway and won't (knowingly) tuck up her ex tenant.

I agree written proof would probably be needed in court which is why I keep suggesting tenants collect this. I still don't see how there can be a valid S21 served at the start and yet the tenants know that they have a home for life as long as they dont mess (the LL) about.

Clutton if I've got the wrong end of the stick over how you operate perhaps you could say how that is? As a tenant I can't see how I'd know I can stay if I'd been served a S21 unless the landlord offered to withdraw the S21 and I agreed. But then the landlord would be back to needing to give me two months notice again should he wish me to leave making the whole exercise pointless I know I've asked this loads of times but so far no landlord has ever given a clear answer other than saying it's a way to get tenants out quickly should they "go bad". The only solution to the puzzle I can see is that the landlord is relying on the tenant not having written proof and thus being unable to prove what was said as above.

MissMoneypenny

franklee wrote: »

It would also be interesting to see what Painsmith say about a tenant acting upon an S21 notice by leaving when it later transpires the S21 was invalid. I'd be suprised if the S21 being invalid means the landlord can then claim a months rent payment as the tenant didn't give notice.

Still if anyone finds a way to have their cake and eat it please let me know It would be jolly useful.

I agree with what you have said above franklee. The tenant can not know if the landlord has made a mistake on the section21. The intent from the landlord however is clear - they want their property back and have given 2 months notice.

It's a very convincing arguement you are making franklee about the lifespan of a section 21 and one that has never occured to me before. If, as some LLs claim, they serve a section 21, don't act on it but it keep it there is case their tenant "turns bad", then the tenant will not be required to give notice as the landlord has already served the notice. A tenant could just leave and as long as they have paid their rent up to date, it seems they won't own the LL any more money. It will work both ways.

MissMoneypenny

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

Clutton...just for future ref...if you serve a S21 to all your tenants as a matter of course, it is now (since Spril 2007 when the new tnenacy depoist nonsense came into force) not legally valid unless it is served AFTER the deposit is protected....so, in future, you will need to protect the deposit with DPS or Mydeposits THEN served the S21 making sure you date and time stamp it to be able to demonstrate in court, should you need to do so, that it was served correctly.
(source: Marveen Smith, Painsmith solicitors)

I have said that to clutton before too. It is clearly written in the act that a section 21 can't be served until the deposit has been protected.

MissMoneypenny

From what I am reading a section 8 has a lifespan of 1 year
http://www.investinproperty.com/CMS.asp?LV1=8&LV2=42

No mention of the lifespan of section 21. franklee is correct. It seems therefore, that a LL or LA should only serve a Section21 when they really want the tenant to vacate the property. Once a sectiion21 has been served, this seems to negate the need for the tenant to give notice as the LL has already given notice (LLs choice if they decide not pursue through court if the tenant doesn't vacate).

Anyone else got a view on this? TBS, NearlyLegal, where are you?

83rachel

sorry to interupt here but i think i have to say something here. i am a single parent on housing benifit (not because i cant be bothered to work but because my daughter is disabled and i cant work wile she is so ill) not all tennants are the same. up untill my landlord sold his house from under me without notice and i ended up homless i was a good tennant he house was kept clean the gardens and pavment area arround were regularly maintained and the repairs he refused to do i got people in to do myself. alot of people i know are the same when renting. the problem is because of the way landlords think that single parents on dss will rip off and scarper it is virtually impossible for me to rent now. i am sorry this has happened to you its people like this woman that give us single parents a bad name.

clutton_2

hi rachel - i never give a whole group of folks a bad name, i treat each prospective tenant as an individual. half my portfolio is inhabited by single parent mums, and i have only had to evict one single mum in 9 years. i am sorry you had a bad experience with a poor landlord.

unfortunately since LHA now goes to tenants, there have been significant numbers of ruthless tenants run off with rent in certain areas.

hi franklee

please quote one specific case in law which substantiates your S.O.D ideas