s21 Notice issues

coventrees

Where a married couple - tenants on a periodic tenancy following on from natural end of an assured shorthold tenancy - have been served s21 notice for possession, what (if anything) is the significance of:

a. Originally the couple both signed the written tenancy agreement, but subsequently a new tenancy agreement was signed only by one of the tenants; and

b. The landlords set up a company and transferred ownership of the property to the company, but that company has been wound up;

c. The 'landlords' named in the tenancy agreement are not registerred owners of the property?

mightymouse

Hi

From the Tenants viewpoint

A. makes no difference,
b. make no difference to tenant.
c. makes no difference to tenant.

Always assuming that the same landlord(s) appear on the Tenancy and S21.

It really depends on the reason why these questions have been raised.
I would be more concerned as a Tenant that the S21 had been issued correctly.

may_fair

coventrees wrote: »

Where a married couple - tenants on a periodic tenancy following on from natural end of an assured shorthold tenancy - have been served s21 notice for possession, what (if anything) is the significance of:

a. Originally the couple both signed the written tenancy agreement, but subsequently a new tenancy agreement was signed only by one of the tenants; and

The tenant is whoever is named as tenant on the most recent contract.

b. The landlords set up a company and transferred ownership of the property to the company, but that company has been wound up;

Did the company serve notice on the T under s.48 LTA1987 and s.3 LTA1985 (together with old LL's letter of authority) i.e. telling you that the company was your new LL?

It's conceivable that the company granted a tenancy to your LL entitling him to sublet, in which case your LL would continue as LL.

c. The 'landlords' named in the tenancy agreement are not registerred owners of the property?

Who is the registered owner?

Are you a tenant hoping to defend a s.21 possession application?

may_fair

mightymouse wrote: »

From the Tenants viewpoint

A. makes no difference,

It could well make a difference. If it is a joint tenancy and only one JT is named on the s.21 notice, then the notice will be effectively invalid.

mightymouse

Hi may_fair

I would be more concerned as a Tenant that the S21 had been issued correctly

I thought this was self explanatory.

may_fair

mightymouse wrote: »

I thought this was self explanatory.

Your other statement - that it 'makes no difference' who is named as T on the s.21 - contradicts the assertion that OP should be concerned as to the validity of the notice.

coventrees

Thanks for your comments! I've added further info below. Please can you help further?

may_fair wrote: »

The tenant is whoever is named as tenant on the most recent contract. ?

What if on the most recent contract both partners are named but only one has actually signed the written contract?

Did the company serve notice on the T under s.48 LTA1987 and s.3 LTA1985 (together with old LL's letter of authority) i.e. telling you that the company was your new LL??

No. What is the effect of such a lapse?

It's conceivable that the company granted a tenancy to your LL entitling him to sublet, in which case your LL would continue as LL.

I've never been aware of it. The landlord continued as normal with no reference to any changes in ownership.

Who is the registered owner??

We have no idea. How can one find out?

Are you a tenant hoping to defend a s.21 possession application?

Yes, actually this is on behalf of my sister and brother in law who are not computer savvy.

G_M

coventrees wrote: »

I've never been aware of it. The landlord continued as normal with no reference to any changes in ownership.

We have no idea. How can one find out?

Then why does your first post say:

c. The 'landlords' named in the tenancy agreement are not registerred owners of the property?

may_fair

coventrees wrote: »

What if on the most recent contract both partners are named but only one has actually signed the written contract?

A tenancy contract need not be in writing, so it'd depend on the facts/evidence as to whether the tenancy is a joint one or not. If, for example, there was correspondence between the joint tenants and LL prior to the renewal, and this discussed a renewal joint tenancy, then this would be evidence that it's a joint tenancy. (But of course, there could be other evidence to the contrary).

No. What is the effect of such a lapse?

It's not a lapse unless the company became the new LL as well as the new owner. As I said, it's possible that although ownership transferred to the company, the company granted a tenancy to the LL so that the LL didn't actually change (he became the intermediary LL, e.g. company lets to LL, LL sublets to occupier).

We have no idea. How can one find out?

Land Registry online.