Repossession of rented home (section 21)

nollag2006

G_M wrote: »

Maybe not. But a court certainly would if the S21 is issued before/same time as the AST OR before the deposit has been properly lodged/protected (Eng/Wales).

Thanks G_M. I think we are both in violent agreement !

LaRoux

As I'm not a LL but a T I need to be clear what the benefits are of serving a S21 at the start of a tenancy and how it expediates the eviction process.
Until the start of this tenancy 15 months ago I had never seen a S21 but we were issued with one at the start, now unfortunately we have been issued with a more up to date one but I would still like to know why at the start.

This is turning out to be a very expensive and stressful learning curve and we really cannot afford to take any more chances.

clutton_2

lyndy you clearly know beggar all about being a landlord.... your only way forward is to join National Landlords Associaation and get value from their legal helpline... joining fee is tax deductible and a darned sight cheaper than a solicitor....

if you dont even know which form to use - you will not get the repossession processs right ( as well as not having got the deposit process right)

i suggest, like others, that you spend a few nights/weeks reading www.landlordzone.co.uk if you get your "forms" wrong the judge will throw it out, you will have lost £150 and you will have also lost 2-3-4 months and will have to start all over again.....

amateur landlords.. dontcha just lurve em...

Wee_Willy_Harris

LaRoux wrote: »

As I'm not a LL but a T I need to be clear what the benefits are of serving a S21 at the start of a tenancy and how it expediates the eviction process.
Until the start of this tenancy 15 months ago I had never seen a S21 but we were issued with one at the start, now unfortunately we have been issued with a more up to date one but I would still like to know why at the start.

This is turning out to be a very expensive and stressful learning curve and we really cannot afford to take any more chances.

A S21 served at the start of a tenancy is an indication that you have a very unprofessional LL who, if his use of this very poor practice is an indication, will have little regard for you as a tenant or for your home. But it's not necessarily all bad news for the tenant.

If it's served before you are NOTIFIED of the tenancy deposit protection used by the LL, then it's no more than a scrap of paper with some meaningless writing on. Stick it in a drawer with the t/agg and give it no more thought. Oh, and don't mention it to the LL. Let him waste his time and money on the required court proceedures if he wishes.

If it's served AFTER you've had notification of the tenancy deposit protection (and all else being correct) then it's a valid S21 and the LL MAY approach the courts after your initial tenancy term (6 months unless a longer period is stated.

Even if the S21 is valid, if the LL takes any steps that are inconsistant with a wish to evict (rent increase, offer to extend tenancy etc) then the S21 becomes invalid. Again, I wouldn't mention that to the LL.

Most of these notices are served prior to the deposit being protected and are, as a result, invalid and nothing to worry about. Some LL's use this very poor practice as a rather blunt threat to tenants, a threat that good referencing would mitigate. My advice to anyone being introduced to this level of insecurity at an early stage of the tenancy is to look for another property and a better landlord.

StudentMoneySaver

"Oh hello New Tenant, welcome to your new home..."

"...Now eff off."

Wee_Willy_Harris

StudentMoneySaver wrote: »

"Oh hello New Tenant, welcome to your new home..."

"...Now eff off."

Got it in one. Why on earth would a LL want his tenants to feel insecure in their home? It's just sharp practice and a very good indicator that your LL is, frankly, a bit of a spanner. If he has such little regard for your home, I would suggest changing the locks as a matter of course as these kinds of sharp practices are indicative of a LL with no regard for your rights or privacy. High turnover of good tenants is never something to aspire to.

franklee

Excellent posts Wee Willy Harris. Just to add (to assist other tenants with finding them) this procedure is nicknamed The Sword of Damocles.

sequence

So... Is the deposit protected now ?

lyndylorraine

The deposit was protected the day after I received the court claim with DPS. So I'm waiting on the results of Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher.

Thank you all for your advice, it's good to clarify the next steps forward before jumping in. I learnt the hardway but now I'm slowly making my way through the landlordzone forum.

Does anyone have an idea on the expected eviction date if I file repossession the day after section 21 is over? If not, what variables does it rely on?

Thank you again

Lyndy

tbs624

lyndylorraine wrote: »

Hey! Thanks for your quick replies.

The tenant was initally on a 6 month AST from the beginning of October '09. Which expired April. She's now on a periodic agreement. The deposit has been somewhat of an issue, she has taken me to court for 3 times deposit - the result is 'pending' until the 2 high court cases are finalised regarding securing the deposit within the 14days notice from tentant (as I did).

My highlighting

What we have here is a LL who has failed to register her T's deposit until she receives notice of court action from the T. It's not the deposit that "has been somewhat of an issue", but the LL's omission to scheme-register that deposit.

LLs who behave like this set the tone for the tenancy

Join up to NLA, RLA and /or LLlaw and familiarise yourself with yuor duties as a LL: gaining the necessary knowledge will mean less stress for you in the long run and indicate a more responsible attitude from you towards the business relationship with future tenants.

All Ts (and decent LLs) should continue to be highlighting the flaws in the Tenancy Deposit regs, via their MPs and the Housing Minister. The legislative wording, and its subsequent interpretation, seems to still allow too many LLs to undermine the legislation's raison d'etre.