We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Interpretation needed - help please.
Comments
-
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.Serving a S21 together with an invitation to renew would invalidate the S21.Life should be a little nuts; otherwise it's just a bunch of Thursdays strung together.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0
-
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.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.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
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.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.
I'm not arguing the logic (which I understand and kind of agree) - just the law.Life should be a little nuts; otherwise it's just a bunch of Thursdays strung together.0 -
I think this is not necessarily a statute matter, more a procedural issue.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.
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.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
I assume you mean tenant?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.
You're right. No statute. But not all law is statute-based.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards