Interpretation needed - help please.

Benji

G_M wrote: »

Serving a S21 together with an invitation to renew would invalidate the S21.

Sorry to disagree again - the s21 relates only to the current contract/tenancy agreement. It is not affected by a proposed replacement tenancy UNLESS that tenancy actually comes into effect - in which case the s21 would become invalid. The 2 contracts are separate legal arrangements.

G_M

Benji wrote: »

Sorry to disagree again - the s21 relates only to the current contract/tenancy agreement. It is not affected by a proposed replacement tenancy UNLESS that tenancy actually comes into effect - in which case the s21 would become invalid. The 2 contracts are separate legal arrangements.

We'll have to agree to disagree - but we are in good company as the (informed) concensus appears divided on the issue. There's a Landlordzone dicussion here.

bris

I take it to mean that the tenant chooses one or the other. If he signs the new contract then the s21 is void, if he doesnt sign the new contract then the s21 is for the old one, and if served correctly, would be the first step for the notice to evict.

Benji

G_M wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree

Sounds like a sensible option.

DVardysShadow

Benji wrote: »

Sorry to disagree again - the s21 relates only to the current contract/tenancy agreement. It is not affected by a proposed replacement tenancy UNLESS that tenancy actually comes into effect - in which case the s21 would become invalid. The 2 contracts are separate legal arrangements.

Ah, what people are getting at is that the offer to renew is in stark contrast to the S21 and it is generally held to be invalid. While s21 is notice with 'no need for an excuse', it is not a 'have your cake and eat it' option, so any act by the LL which contradicts the s21 - such as offering an extension - will be held to invalidate it.

Benji

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Ah, what people are getting at is that the offer to renew is in stark contrast to the S21 and it is generally held to be invalid. While s21 is notice with 'no need for an excuse', it is not a 'have your cake and eat it' option, so any act by the LL which contradicts the s21 - such as offering an extension - will be held to invalidate it.

Offering a replacement is fine, because it is still conditional upon the landlords acceptance. There is no statute that makes a s21 invalid in this situation - although I would find it hugely interesting to be proved wrong.

I'm not arguing the logic (which I understand and kind of agree) - just the law.

DVardysShadow

Benji wrote: »

Offering a replacement is fine, because it is still conditional upon the landlords acceptance. There is no statute that makes a s21 invalid in this situation - although I would find it hugely interesting to be proved wrong.

I'm not arguing the logic (which I understand and kind of agree) - just the law.

I think this is not necessarily a statute matter, more a procedural issue.

As is frequently stated here, T does not have to leave. The s21 is the gateway to legal proceedings for possession. Suppose the LL issues an s21. And a few days later offers a renewal. T does not vacate, but continues to pay rent. LL takes T to court for possession. T says 'Look, here is an offer to renew, dated after the s21 - obviously LL has withdrawn his s21'.Judge will be hard pressed to disagree.

G_M

Benji wrote: »

Offering a replacement is fine, because it is still conditional upon the landlords acceptance. There is no statute that makes a s21 invalid in this situation - although I would find it hugely interesting to be proved wrong.

I'm not arguing the logic (which I understand and kind of agree) - just the law.

I assume you mean tenant?

You're right. No statute. But not all law is statute-based.