handing in notice

stolt

Planner wrote: »

Thats correct, if you want to leave on the 16th April then your notice must be recieved by the LL/LA on or before the 16th March. As it says 2 months in the contract they will likley argue with you, however the law is on your side so stick to your guns.

ok great thanks for that. Will get the letter sent off to the landlord then, do you think its wise to mention that the contract is wrong or just state giving one months notice from the 16th march.

Our rental is from a first time BTL, who has a normaly mortgage covering this BTL, as i've had to forward several letters onto his parents from accord mortgages advising him that they have suspicions that the property is being let out!

Planner

stolt wrote: »

ok great thanks for that. Will get the letter sent off to the landlord then, do you think its wise to mention that the contract is wrong or just state giving one months notice from the 16th march.

Our rental is from a first time BTL, who has a normaly mortgage covering this BTL, as i've had to forward several letters onto his parents from accord mortgages advising him that they have suspicions that the property is being let out!

I would just keep your notice letter as just that, a notice letter. When (If) they come back to you saying youve got to give two months, point out they are wrong then.

speedtwin

Planner wrote: »

The end of a tenancy period will always be the same and correponds with the end date of the original fixed term.

In your scenario above the end of the fixed term would always remain the day before the 1st of the month (so 28th, 29th, 30th or 31st depending on the month!). The tenancy period will always remain monthly as 1st of XXX to last day of XXX.

If the tenant made a part payment, then this would be an agreement between there LL/LA and themselves and wouldnt change the tenancy period. Notice by either LL or tenant would still have to end on the last day of the particular month.

If that is the case what is your view on
Church Commissioners for England v G Meya 2006 in the court of appeal
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/821.html
It states a number of times:

(d) under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy; and

"The periods of the tenancy are defined by section 5(3)(d) as being those "for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy

(d) under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy …"

Section 21(4)(a) of the Housing Act states:

(a) that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice in writing stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section; and

Now I dont profess to be any expert on housing law but it does seem to clarify what a period of the tenancy is, which seems to be when the rent is payable not the fixed terms of the original contract. Which could be a very important for the dating on a s21.

Now i know any informal arrangment for changing the rent due shouldnt matter but some L/L have it written into the contract.

Planner what is your view on the implications of that court case being as it was at the court of appeal which normally sets precedent.

franklee

speedtwin,

That just means if you are supposed to pay monthly the period is monthly, if you are supposed to pay weekly the period is weekly, same for quarterly etc.

The date the tenant actually pays is irrelevant.

The start date of a period is defined by the date the tenancy started.
It is not defined by the date the tenancy agreement was signed.
It is not defined by the date the tenant pays on.
It is the date the tenancy actually started, usually as defined in the tenancy agreement.

The length of the period month/week/3 months/ is defined as above.

So for a tenancy where rent is due to be paid monthly and that started on the 17th the period is 17th of one month till 16th of the following month.

Notice should end on the 16th and the tenant should vacate by the end of the day on the 16th.

The tenant should make sure the notice has arrived by the 16th allowing time for delivery. That way the tenant gives one month clear notice from the 17th to the 16th of the following month. There is nothing wrong with delivering the notice early, in fact that it's better to deliver early if possible to make sure it arrived in time.

Planner

speedtwin wrote: »

If that is the case what is your view on
Church Commissioners for England v G Meya 2006 in the court of appeal
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/821.html







It states a number of times:

(d) under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy; and

"The periods of the tenancy are defined by section 5(3)(d) as being those "for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy

(d) under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy …"

Section 21(4)(a) of the Housing Act states:

(a) that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice in writing stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section; and

Now I dont profess to be any expert on housing law but it does seem to clarify what a period of the tenancy is, which seems to be when the rent is payable not the fixed terms of the original contract. Which could be a very important for the dating on a s21.

Now i know any informal arrangment for changing the rent due shouldnt matter but some L/L have it written into the contract.

Planner what is your view on the implications of that court case being as it was at the court of appeal which normally sets precedent.

As franklee clarified above and as I said in post 18 on previous page. The two 'key' pieces of information are (i) the tenancy period, which is derived from the frequency of rent payments (not the date) and (ii) the date on which the fixed term will/came to an end.

In the Church Commisioners Case you have highlighted, the decision was around what was the tenancy period? was it quaterly or annually. This was decided by looking at the frequency of rent payments (every quater), rather than the date they where paid. This then gives the 'period' which you then feed this 'period' into s.21 (4)a/b .

So to answer your questions;

Now I dont profess to be any expert on housing law but it does seem to clarify what a period of the tenancy is, which seems to be when the rent is payable not the fixed terms of the original contract. Which could be a very important for the dating on a s21.

Sort of correct. The period of the tenancy is the frequency of rent payments (not the date of rent payements). From this the length of notice given is derived, not the date on which that notice needs to end.

Now i know any informal arrangment for changing the rent due shouldnt matter but some L/L have it written into the contract.

'Informal' was a bad choice of words, none statutory, would have been more appropriate i.e. the rent payment date has no effect on the date the fixed term comes/came to an end.

Planner what is your view on the implications of that court case being as it was at the court of appeal which normally sets precedent.

Yes it does, and this one is quite a well quoted one. However you have misunderstood what precedant it sets.

speedtwin

As I said I dont profess to be any expert on housing law butI am sure i have read of some landlords having their evictions struck out because the rent due dates being different. I will have to try and dig them out now.

Thanks for the replies.