Notice Requiring Possession

Meepster

Hi everyone, I'm wondering if someone can help a friend of mine out (one of the things I know very little about is laws regarding renting and their terminology)

They signed an Assured Shorthold Tennancy agreement on the 18th August 2011, which runs for an initial 6 month period up the the 21st February 2011.

One of the things they were given with their Tennancy Agreement was a letter, titled "Notice Requiring Possession" which states the following:

I give you notice that I require possession of this dwelling house known as {address is listed} after 21 January 2012, by virtue of your fixed term shorthold tenancy in accordance with the Housing Act 1988, Section 21 (1) (b) as amended by the Housing Act 1996.

Can someone please explain what this means?

She was told that after the 6 months they could stay there on a month to month contract, but they are now panicing

Thanks

Meeps

silvercar

Standard section 21 notice,requiring possession at end of fixed term. First step in landlord seeking his property back. But it is only the first step and many landlords do this automatically when issuing. First contract.

Was there a deposit paid? And if so was it protected before this section 21 issued? If not then the S21 is not valid?

Meepster

Ah ok, so it's NOT a case of them actually taking the property back, it's just covering themselves if, after the initial 6 months, they want to get rid of her? (I'm presuming for things like how she looks after the house, pays the rent on time etc.)

A months rent was taken as a deposit around a month before she moved in and it is protected. (I helped out with the deposit, so I made sure it was going into a protected scheme)

So it's actually quite common practice and nothing to worry about?

jjlandlord

The thing is that including such a notice in the tenancy agreement most likely invalidates the notice because the tenancy had not started at the time of service and/or the deposit was not yet protected...

If notice is valid then LL can start eviction proceedings at any time after the notice's expiry without further notice to tenant. So there is something to worry about, the so-called sword of Damocles.

Imo, from a landlord's perspective serving a s.21 notice right at the start of the tenancy is not very useful and had the potential to p... the tenant off.

Meepster

It's not actually in the tennancy agreement. It was a letter that was given to her on the day that she got the keys, the day the tenancy agreement was signed.

jjlandlord

Meepster wrote: »

It's not actually in the tennancy agreement. It was a letter that was given to her on the day that she got the keys, the day the tenancy agreement was signed.

It's still open to argument unless one can prove the exact timeline. So one thing to remember should it become necessary to defend the LL's claim to possession.

Even worse practice from agent, then: "Welcome home, here's your s.21". Nice...

Meepster

jjlandlord wrote: »

It's still open to argument unless one can prove the exact timeline.

Even worse practice from agent, then: "Welcome home, here's your s.21". Nice...

That makes sense I guess, but I guess it's just used as a scare tactic at most, a case of "if you don't pay up on time, look after the place etc we'll get you evicted" and not "You WILL be going after 6 months"?

camptownraces

Meepster wrote: »

That makes sense I guess, but I guess it's just used as a scare tactic at most, a case of "if you don't pay up on time, look after the place etc we'll get you evicted" and not "You WILL be going after 6 months"?

Exactly. If L wanted to pursue it, he would have to book a court hearing for a possession order, and he couldn't even book the court hearing until the end of the fixed six months.

And then there could be a dispute in court as to whether the notice was served before or after the beginning of the tenancy...

And whether, at that time when the notice was served, the deposit was already protected and the tenant had been given the prescribed information about where the deposit was and who was protecting it....

Meepster

Phew!!

Ok thanks everyone for your help, I'm sure that will put her at ease

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

The thing is that including such a notice in the tenancy agreement most likely invalidates the notice because the tenancy had not started at the time of service and/or the deposit was not yet protected...

If notice is valid then LL can start eviction proceedings at any time after the notice's expiry without further notice to tenant. So there is something to worry about, the so-called sword of Damocles.

Imo, from a landlord's perspective serving a s.21 notice right at the start of the tenancy is not very useful and had the potential to p... the tenant off.

I agree. As it can easily be invalidated by the sequence of events at the start of a tenancy, it is a waste of time. It can needlessly p off perfectly decent tenants. I cannot see any point in doing it.

By the end of month 3 it will be plain whether a tenant is OK or the Landlord will know he wants the property back - so that is the time to think about issuing a s21 notice for the end of the assured period.

To me, this smacks of letting agents using it as a tactic to keep tenants insecure so that they sign up for a renewal and feel lucky to have kept the place.

G_M

The best advice to landlords is to NEVER issue the S21 on the same day as the tenancy, since if the dates are the same it is impossible to prove it was served AFTER (rather than before or together with) the tenancy.

It is only valid if served AFTER, since you cannot legally request to end a tenancy before it has started.

As others have said, if valid, it does not indicate the LL will not allow the tenancy to continue, it is just an insurance in case he does decide to end it. Also as others have said, it's not very good for tenant/landlord relations - I never do it. As a LL one generally knows by month 3 or 4 whether the tenant is reliable, which is still plenty of time to serve the 2 month notice to coincide with the 6 month point.