Section 21 No Fault Notice

theartfullodger

agrinnall wrote: »

....The thing is, the lease that the T has signed is for a particular duration. At the end of that time, which is the point at which a S21 can be issued, the lease is over and the property once again belongs to the LL.

errr... no...


S21 can be served much earlier, (Only validly after deposit protected & "prescribed info" served on T) - say 1 week after start of tenancy...

The lease (can we say tenancy??) is only over when legally ended: This does not usually happen at the end of the fixed term: It continues, up to LL applying for possession order & those charming & polite bailiffs coming round & carrying poor innocent tenant out. Even if T never paid any rent after moving in: And damaged the place: And LL got complaints from neighbours etc etc etc /..,

Until tenancy legally ended the house/flat is still the tenant's property. Until then it is but the Landlord's investment..

Cheers!

Artful (Landlord since 2000).

franklee

theartfullodger wrote: »

S21 can be served much earlier, (Only validly after deposit protected & "prescribed info" served on T) - say 1 week after start of tenancy...

Which is often abused by serving the S21 simply as a precaution even when the LL has no intention of getting possession. This (nicknamed Sword of Damocles) is used so a tenant who remains on a periodic tenancy has no right to any notice as the LL can apply for possession at any time. I've seen some landlords here argue the tenant has had their notice but what use is that if on the one hand the LL serves an S21 and on the other unofficially says a tenant can stay? Notice is after all meant to be a time during which a tenant arranges to move before the LL can drag them to court (and likely stiff the tenant for the LL's court fees).

It's the abuse of the S21 that needs wiping out IMO. Serving an S21 fair and square when possession is actually wanted isn't so bad although I agree it's a pain.

amy104

Yes, it was done at a time when there was a shortage of rented property. It was felt that the no fault notice would be a good counterbalance to the previous situation with total security of tenure, which led to a shortage of supply.

Thank you for clarifying. I was just curious as I have seen several threads on here where the OP has a query about landlord liable repairs yet the advice was along the lines of you can ask the landlord but don't be surprised if you get evicted for asking. It seems a little extream.

Don't get me wrong I totally understand that there are some awful tenants about but I'm sure there are some equally awful landlords too. I understand the old tenancies were very tenant biased? Now it seems almost the other way. The pendulum to mentioned is a good visual. Surely when they last reviewed it they could of come up with something a little more balanced?

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

but what use is that if on the one hand the LL serves an S21 and on the other unofficially says a tenant can stay? Notice is after all meant to be a time during which a tenant arranges to move before the LL can drag them to court (and likely stiff the tenant for the LL's court fees).

On the plus side if T has written evidence that LL was proposing a new agreement, it can sway the court into _not_ awarding costs to LL.

franklee wrote: »

It's the abuse of the S21 that needs wiping out IMO. Serving an S21 fair and square when possession is actually wanted isn't so bad although I agree it's a pain.

100% agree.
Imo, once the notice expires LL should have, say, 1 month max. to start court proceedings or the notice becomes invalid (so that LL would have to serve a new one).

princeofpounds

It's true that the old model of tenancies was rididulous. Anything that distorts a market rate like assured tenancies and rent controls is a major problem that produces many injustices for both the landlord and the tenants frozen out of the system.

Many things about the AST system were an improvement. I don't even object (as someone who has always been on the 'tenant' side) to landlords being able to recover possession without having to give a reason. It is their property after all.

The main problem with S21 is quite simple; it is that the lack of length and security of tenure provides peverse and counter-productive incentives. Basically the planning horizon becomes too short to suit the management of an asset which clearly requires long-term custody.

It's no good being in a situation where a tenant is fearful of enforcing their rights to have the property in a safe condition because they will be on the street before there is any chance of enforcement being made. Or that a landlord finds it an easier resort than facing up to their obligations.

Similarly such short horizons prevents the tenant from any emotional investment in the property, is disruptive to lifestyles (things like having children become a real problem), employment (moving twice a year can take up a substantial portion of any holiday time you have, assuming you even get to pick the date, plus all the costs incurred).

My solution would be similar to that suggested by an earlier poster; 6 months is a much more reasonable planning horizon for a no-fault issue.

jamie11

princeofpounds wrote: »

My solution would be similar to that suggested by an earlier poster; 6 months is a much more reasonable planning horizon for a no-fault issue.

That's all very well, but what do you suggest follows that? At present, if a tenant digs his heels in, it is around six months before bailiffs can enforce the possession.

I would be very happy to give a six month 'no fault' notice to a tenant if I needed to regain possession, but only if, at the end of that time, I was able to be guaranteed possession without having to go to court or employ the court bailiff at extra expense.

I stress that this should only be for genuine 'no fault' cases, not for those where the S21 is served 'because it's easier'.

princeofpounds

That's all very well, but what do you suggest follows that? At present, if a tenant digs his heels in, it is around six months before bailiffs can enforce the possession.

It's a fair point, and I would agree that the repossession service is not exactly 'customer-oriented'. If you were asking me to magic something out of thin air, I'd suggest that 2 weeks for a court appearance and 2-4 weeks for an eviction date would be more reasonable. But it's easy just to say that!

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

On the plus side if T has written evidence that LL was proposing a new agreement, it can sway the court into _not_ awarding costs to LL.

I would hope so, which is why the agreement to stay is so often some informal verbal thing. If a landlord won't confirm something in writing then I'd suggest a tenant should not rely on what was said or at the least should write to the LL confirming any conversations themselves.

jjlandlord wrote: »

100% agree. Imo, once the notice expires LL should have, say, 1 month max. to start court proceedings or the notice becomes invalid (so that LL would have to serve a new one).

They were a few years back talking about a use it or lose it scheme for notice in the rented homes bill that went nowhere and is probably clogging up a few dusty shelves somewhere. I suppose that at least meant they acknowledged the problem but nothing is likely to be done about it now.

franklee

princeofpounds wrote: »

It's a fair point, and I would agree that the repossession service is not exactly 'customer-oriented'. If you were asking me to magic something out of thin air, I'd suggest that 2 weeks for a court appearance and 2-4 weeks for an eviction date would be more reasonable. But it's easy just to say that!

A LL has to wait in the queue along with everyone else. I'm sure other types of business or individuals who want court time think their own case is just as worthy. Should a LL for example be able to jump the queue over a tenant wanting their deposit back, or an old lady making a claim for something entirely different.

I do think depriving someone of their home is sufficiently important to require court if it's disputed.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

I would hope so, which is why the agreement to stay is so often some informal verbal thing.

I think a LL's agreement that T can stay is even more serious as it could imo invalidate the notice altogether: After all it means that LL no longer requires possession.