Notice Requiring Possession

Meepster

Again, thanks everyone. I told her the news earlier and to say she is relieved is an understatement

franklee

G_M wrote: »

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.

Some LL's call it just an insurance to sound innocuous but it's a blatant way of circumventing the need to give a tenant a fair two months notice.

I think this serving notice and then saying things like the OP's "that after the 6 months they could stay there on a month to month contract" is a pretty rotten thing to do as it encourages the tenant not to use the last two months of the notice period to arrange moving. Then they are left vulnerable to a landlord starting possession proceedings at any point in future without any further notice.

It's all fine for posters here to explain the S21 isn't a notice to quit, and of course that's entirely right and I realise a tenant doesn't have to move at the end of a S21 notice period, but out in the real world staying past S21 can be used to give a tenant a black mark on their reference. What new landlord would take on a tenant who is currently staying past S21 notice expiry on their existing tenancy as it smacks of troublesome tenant? Also if the tenant is meant to be blame free for staying past a S21 notice why are the LL's court fees often changed to the tenant when the LL seeks possession via S21?

What the whole thing says to me in the OP's case is dodgy agent and maybe inexperienced LL I'm afraid. I'm glad to read you don't do it

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

Also if the tenant is meant to be blame free for staying past a S21 notice why are the LL's court fees often changed to the tenant when the LL seeks possession via S21?

The notice is meant to be used when the LL actually requires possession. In addition, that fact that the LL has to start court proceedings suggests that the tenant refused to agree to a surrender.
So not unreasonable that LL be awarded costs.

Of course as we see here S.21 notices are now often served when the LL does not seek possession at all, and perhaps without his knowledge, which I think goes against the spirit of the statutes...

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

The notice is meant to be used when the LL actually requires possession. In addition, that fact that the LL has to start court proceedings suggests that the tenant refused to agree to a surrender.
So not unreasonable that LL be awarded costs.

Of course as we see here S.21 notices are now often served when the LL does not seek possession at all, and perhaps without his knowledge, which I think goes against the spirit of the statutes...

Thank you. Yes I think it goes against the spirit of the statutes as well.