Tenants for 6 yrs now landlord says 2 weeks to vacate property?? help

franklee

G_M wrote: »

Wee Willy is absolutely right, though asking him for case law is a bit cheeky. Now if the OP were asking for confirmation etc I'd understand, but another poster using the thread to learn the ropes - esp a poster who makes erroneous statements like "Has she got a gas certificate from this joke of a landlord? If not, he cannot even legally serve an S21."" (guess you're getting confused with deposit protection?)

But the point here is that we don't even know if the tenant has even received a S21, valid or otherwise! Unless I've missed something, all the OP said was "an estate agent rang the other day and said the property has been sold, and my friend has 2 weeks to vacate the property"

The OP needs to clarify before we all get bogged down in case law discussions!

I raised the point for the OP to check for already having a S21 as I didn't know the rent increase could void a S21. The only reason I asked Wee about case law was because he'd just mentioned there was case law on it in this thread. If anyone does have anything to back up a rent increase voiding a S21 I'd be interested to hear more on this. Likewise for anything on a rent increase being inconsistent with wanting to end a tenancy. It seems a shame not to share such knowledge but if the problem is cluttering this thread perhaps those in the know could pm me or maybe the alternative is to start a new thread. Thank you to anyone who can share.

As for your quoting ""Has she got a gas certificate from this joke of a landlord? If not, he cannot even legally serve an S21." that wasn't me so I'm not sure why you raise it now.

Finally apologies to the OP for any digression, I was concerned your friend's landlord thinking he could ask her to leave in two weeks may have indicated an S21 was already served. I still think it's worth your looking to see if she has an S21 and if so coming back to check the details. Even if there's an invalid S21 it would help you to know the details why to use as defence.

clutton_2

found on landlordzone today !!

Does a rent increase void an old Section 21?
Hi, If you have a tenant on a periodic tenancy with an S21 already served as a precaution, does increasing the rent by a section 13 followed by the tenant paying the increased rent (and the landlord accepting it) invalidate the S21? Many thanks.

PuzzledtenantView Public ProfileSend a private message to PuzzledtenantFind all posts by PuzzledtenantAdd Puzzledtenant to Your Contacts

#2
23-05-2010, 09:33 AM
Lawcruncher
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Andaluc!a
Posts: 3,251



Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzzledtenant
Hi, If you have a tenant on a periodic tenancy with an S21 already served as a precaution, does increasing the rent by a section 13 followed by the tenant paying the increased rent (and the landlord accepting it) invalidate the S21? Many thanks.

I cannot see any reason why it should.

Wee_Willy_Harris

franklee wrote: »

I raised the point for the OP to check for already having a S21 as I didn't know the rent increase could void a S21. The only reason I asked Wee about case law was because he'd just mentioned there was case law on it in this thread. If anyone does have anything to back up a rent increase voiding a S21 I'd be interested to hear more on this. Likewise for anything on a rent increase being inconsistent with wanting to end a tenancy. It seems a shame not to share such knowledge but if the problem is cluttering this thread perhaps those in the know could pm me or maybe the alternative is to start a new thread. Thank you to anyone who can share.

As for your quoting ""Has she got a gas certificate from this joke of a landlord? If not, he cannot even legally serve an S21." that wasn't me so I'm not sure why you raise it now.

Finally apologies to the OP for any digression, I was concerned your friend's landlord thinking he could ask her to leave in two weeks may have indicated an S21 was already served. I still think it's worth your looking to see if she has an S21 and if so coming back to check the details. Even if there's an invalid S21 it would help you to know the details why to use as defence.

It's a matter of principle which covers a variety of circumstances, not JUST a rent increase. In effect, a section 21 must be "unequivical" in it's intent. Obviously, you are thinking of the abhorent practice of serving S21 at the first opportunity, AKA the Sword of Damocles. A landlord serving a S21 is stating "I intend to take court action to recover possession after this specified date and without the need for further notice". Obviously, this is not consistent with then changing the terms of the tenancy AFTER that expiry date. To do so implies that the change in terms is satisfactory to the LL and is, obviously, not consistent with actions intended to end a tenancy. Interestingly, there is also an argument that serving S21 (SoD) at/near the start of the tenancy with the proviso that "If you behave, I won't act on it" (A not uncommon practice) would constitute a proviso, which makes the S21 equivical and, as such, unenforceable as the landlord has, effectively, withdrawn the unequivical notice by giving such a proviso.

In this case, if we assume S21 HAS been served at/near the start of the tenancy, the LL, after the expiry of the S21, increased the rent once, which was agreed and complied with by the tenant. He then increased the rent further, which was disputed by the tenant and NOT paid. The implication is clearly infered that had the second increase been complied with, the S21 would not have been acted upon. Therefor, the argument is that the S21 is not "unequivical" and was, by virtue of his actions, withdrawn by LL.

Of course, this does not prevent a new S21 being issued.

franklee

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's a matter of principle which covers a variety of circumstances, not JUST a rent increase. In effect, a section 21 must be "unequivical" in it's intent. Obviously, you are thinking of the abhorent practice of serving S21 at the first opportunity, AKA the Sword of Damocles. A landlord serving a S21 is stating "I intend to take court action to recover possession after this specified date and without the need for further notice". Obviously, this is not consistent with then changing the terms of the tenancy AFTER that expiry date. To do so implies that the change in terms is satisfactory to the LL and is, obviously, not consistent with actions intended to end a tenancy. Interestingly, there is also an argument that serving S21 (SoD) at/near the start of the tenancy with the proviso that "If you behave, I won't act on it" (A not uncommon practice) would constitute a proviso, which makes the S21 equivical and, as such, unenforceable as the landlord has, effectively, withdrawn the unequivical notice by giving such a proviso.

In this case, if we assume S21 HAS been served at/near the start of the tenancy, the LL, after the expiry of the S21, increased the rent once, which was agreed and complied with by the tenant. He then increased the rent further, which was disputed by the tenant and NOT paid. The implication is clearly infered that had the second increase been complied with, the S21 would not have been acted upon. Therefor, the argument is that the S21 is not "unequivical" and was, by virtue of his actions, withdrawn by LL.

Of course, this does not prevent a new S21 being issued.

Excellent thanks Willy. I agree with most of this but am surprised that a rent increase comes under that remit. Considering it takes some time for a landlord to evict a tenant I can see that a landlord may genuinely want both a rent increase and for the tenancy to end, this is he wants more rent for those last few months. This is why I was surprised when you posted rent increases void a S21.

BTW I wasn't having a go at you over your saying there's plenty of case law on this as as if you do have any case law details I am really interested as it would put to bed a lot of the SoD arguments that crop up here from time to time

Wee_Willy_Harris

franklee wrote: »

Excellent thanks Willy. I agree with most of this but am surprised that a rent increase comes under that remit. Considering it takes some time for a landlord to evict a tenant I can see that a landlord may genuinely want both a rent increase and for the tenancy to end, this is he wants more rent for those last few months. This is why I was surprised when you posted a rent increase voids a S21.

BTW I wasn't having a go at you over your saying there's plenty of case law on this as as if you do have any case law details I am really interested as it would put to bed a lot of the SoD arguments that crop up here from time to time

The SoD S21 is an interesting subject. In most cases it relys on the ignorance of the tenant and the often mistaken belief that the landlord knows what they're doing. Even before the TDP rules, a S21 served at the same time as the tenancy was issued could be challenged. You get your tenancy with the S21, but which came first? As the law, in this context, doesn't recognise fractions of a day, this would be all but impossible to establish and, therefore, so would the validity of any S21 issued thus.

Obviously, with the need to comply with TDP before a S21 is issued, this has made the above much clearer and it is unlikely (but not impossible) that a S21 would be valid under the TDP at the start of the tenancy.

Obviously, there are clear actions a LL can take to effectively withdraw/override the S21. A new tenancy agreement, for example. But the arguments already given in my earlier post are also valid.

Of interest to the tenant is that, as long as the terms of the tenancy remain unchanged and no further AST has been granted, the SoD S21 allows the tenant to leave the tenancy at any time after the fixed term and expiry of S21 without the need to give ANY notice to the LL. They are, after all, merely complying with the LLs stated intentions. Frankly, despite what you may have gathered in other posts, the sooner more tenants do this, the sooner this odeous practice will cease. It wouldn't take too many unexpected void costs for LLs to see the error of their ways.

Having said all that, this was clearly never the intended use of the S21 legislation and the quicker that is rectified, the better. But even that relies on tenants educating themselves. The weakest link in LL/Tenant legislation isn't the legislation itself, or even its application. It's the ignorance of the parties involved.

franklee

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The SoD S21 is an interesting subject. In most cases it relys on the ignorance of the tenant and the often mistaken belief that the landlord knows what they're doing. Even before the TDP rules, a S21 served at the same time as the tenancy was issued could be challenged. You get your tenancy with the S21, but which came first? As the law, in this context, doesn't recognise fractions of a day, this would be all but impossible to establish and, therefore, so would the validity of any S21 issued thus.

Obviously, with the need to comply with TDP before a S21 is issued, this has made the above much clearer and it is unlikely (but not impossible) that a S21 would be valid under the TDP at the start of the tenancy.

Obviously, there are clear actions a LL can take to effectively withdraw/override the S21. A new tenancy agreement, for example. But the arguments already given in my earlier post are also valid.

Of interest to the tenant is that, as long as the terms of the tenancy remain unchanged and no further AST has been granted, the SoD S21 allows the tenant to leave the tenancy at any time after the fixed term and expiry of S21 without the need to give ANY notice to the LL. They are, after all, merely complying with the LLs stated intentions. Frankly, despite what you may have gathered in other posts, the sooner more tenants do this, the sooner this odeous practice will cease. It wouldn't take too many unexpected void costs for LLs to see the error of their ways.

Having said all that, this was clearly never the intended use of the S21 legislation and the quicker that is rectified, the better. But even that relies on tenants educating themselves. The weakest link in LL/Tenant legislation isn't the legislation itself, or even its application. It's the ignorance of the parties involved.

:eek: You are worrying me now as you sound just like me. I agree 100% with all that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

franklee wrote: »

:eek: You are worrying me now as you sound just like me. I agree 100% with all that.

I just like fair play, from BOTH sides of the LL/T relationship.