Tricks tenants get up to

83rachel

sorry i just re read my post and it did look like i was saying you gave us a bad name i ment it was the lady who rented the house that gave us a bad name.


just a quick question tho is it the same in scotland? because my LHA goes to the council directly, is this just because i am in council accomodation at the moment? (altho as soon as i can find a landlord that will accept LHA i will be going back to private renting)

socrates

83rachel wrote: »

sorry i just re read my post and it did look like i was saying you gave us a bad name i ment it was the lady who rented the house that gave us a bad name.


just a quick question tho is it the same in scotland? because my LHA goes to the council directly, is this just because i am in council accomodation at the moment? (altho as soon as i can find a landlord that will accept LHA i will be going back to private renting)

Rachel there are certain circumstances where LHA can be paid to the LL directly - you would probably not qualify for most of them I assume - e.g language barrier, illiterate, substance abuse BUT if you specifically put on your claim in a separate statement that you do not feel comfortable handling the rent coming in and you would be too tempted to spend it (obviously not the case) Then your LA "may" pay it directly to the LL.

The problem is the govt has set this stupid 90% of all LHA must be paid to tenants directly rule.

My advice would be to get a months deposit together if you can - get onto a scheme at your LA that introduces people in your situation directly tp LL's.

In some cases the LA gives an incentive to the LL to accept LHA claimants so they are actually looking for people like you.

Also elect for the LHA to be paid fortnightly - that way with the months deposit in place you will always be ahead of the game as LHA is paid in arrears. On the flip side if you do pay a deposit make sure the LL puts it into some kind of rent deposit scheme.

As you say you are a very decent tenant whose situation dictates and most good LL will recognise this.

Remember a LL wants the same thing as you a trouble free transaction.

Personally I have a mix of private and LHA/DSS claimants in my portfolio. I have always preferred a scrupulous claimant which goes against most peoples views.

socrates

Incidentally I think the bit where rachel has got involved should really come under another thread its misleading as its a common/serious subject and the original title does not do it any justice.

83rachel

thanks for the advice there i really appreciate it, i have the deposit already (well £750 so almost)

i will definatley look into the schemes you was talking about, its just annoying because alot of people have ripped off landlords wich makes it more difficult for decent tennants

thanks again

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

hi franklee

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

hi clutton

Did you manage to find anything on the lifespan of a Section21? I've had a hunt around the Internet and I can't find anything that says a Section21 has a lifespan.

thanks

MP

clutton_2

A secton 21 has no lifespan as far as i can tell

franklee

clutton wrote: »

hi franklee

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

Hi clutton, Why don't you explain clearly how the SoD works and then we can see if or where we disagree. I don't think it needs case law to prove that landlords serve precautionary S21 notices *even when they don't intend the tenant should leave* as a way of attempting to speed up an S21 eviction later on if the landlord later wants the tenant to leave.

The procedure is:

1. Serve S21 near the start of the tenancy after the deposit is protected. The S21 notice period to expire at the end of the fixed term. This S21 is enforceable indefinitely even after the tenancy goes periodic and there are examples of a S21 being used successfully several years after service.

2. Tell the tenant not to worry it's just a formality you can stay should all go well, as long as you like or similar.

3. Then the landlord will choose if he wants the tenant to leave and apply for possession whenever he likes after the end of the fixed term. He does not need to give the tenant any more notice as the S21 was the notice.

4. A variation is to serve the S21 together with a letter offering renewal two months before the end of the fixed term.

5. If there is no renewal and the tenancy goes periodic the tenant is now living without the right to notice. The landlord can apply to court for possession *at any time*.

Please tell me which bits of the above you disagree with? I assert none as each of the fragments have been confirmed as happening in real life in the forum. Even you have stated clearly that you do serve precautionary S21 notices (even in your AST). Even you state the tenant was surprised at how quickly i could have had her out had i chosen to do so this post:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=5815317&postcount=4

So why do I need to get case law for you to prove this when you operate this way yourself?

As far as I can make out the only thing we disagree on is that I think a tenant can (by estoppel) rely upon the promises that a landlord makes (but should only do so if they are in writing). Thus if after the S21 was served, a landlord promises the tenant can stay and the tenant can prove this the S21 becomes void. So I am genuinely puzzled where we disagree, are you saying a tenant cannot reply upon the landlord's written instructions?

Perhaps if you could point out the parts of the above post you disagree with and explain how you think this precautionary serving of the S21 works

franklee

So it seems to me the trick in the Sword of Damocles is for the landlord to make enough promises to reassure the tenant into ignoring the S21 notice (to prevent the tenant from just leaving at the end of the notice period) but being careful not to give any written confirmation. This means that later on should the landlord wish to action the S21 he can deny the promises and the tenant will have no proof of this. Thus the landlord can then apply to court for posession without having to wait for a two months notice period first.

I suppose the acid test is would you put the promise that you can stay if you don't mess me about in writing?

franklee

Estoppel can mean several things, but the most common arises in a situation where one person makes it clear to another that they won't enforce their strict legal rights (e.g. won't sue one party for breach of contract), and in reliance on that the other party changes their position (e.g. continues to breach the contract as they thought the other party did not mind). In that situation, the party who made it clear that they would not sue cannot change their mind if the other party has relied that representation.

So if the landlord makes it clear to the tenant that we won't enforce the S21, i.e. Don't worry it's just a formality / it's just for for insurance / you can stay if all goes well / you can stay if you don't mess me about or similar then he can't enforce the S21 which is a no fault notice that the landlord requires possession of his property. Assuming the tenant has managed to gather some proof of these reassurances. Without any proof the tenant on a periodic tenancy, with the S21 notice period long ago expired, would be facing having to move at the drop of the landlord's hat or the landlord can apply to court for possession without giving any more notice. The tenant would probably have to pay the landlord's court costs. To top that it now seems that, should the tenant wish to leave before the landlord wishes him to, the landlord would still demand a months notice from the tenant. Just noticed the thread title "Tricks tenants get up to" perhaps I should be in the "Tricks landlords get up to" thread

If there are any landlords here who would like to comment on any errors in my explanation in posts 58, 59, 60 then I am all ears

The warning to tenants is clear do not rely upon a promise to disregard the S21 made by your landlord or his letting agent if the landlord/agent are not willing to confirm it in writing.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

A secton 21 has no lifespan as far as i can tell

Hi clutton

That's what it seems from what I have read too clutton, that a Section 21 doesn't have a lifespan.

When a section 21 (two months notice to move out) has been served by the landlord, the tenant does not need to give notice to the landlord too (unless they want to move out in just 1 month instead of the 2). Speak up if you don't agree.

If the tenant comes off the fixed period and doesn't sign another contract, Shelter says this this becomes a periodic tenancy. Where the tenant has to give 1 months notice to move and the landlord has to give 2 months notice to move. But....if a landlord has already served a section 21 during the fixed period (and we have agreed that a section 21 doesn't have a lifespan) then the landlord has already given the 2 months notice.

As we have also agreed, a tenant is not required to give notice back to the landlord when a section 21 is served.

Therefore, if a landlord would like a months notice when the tenant is leaving a periodic tenancy, it follows that a landlord should not have already issued a section 21, as it has no lifespan.

fanklee seems to be correct.