......Not if they have seen the agreement before hand. But what would you do if the tenant refused to sign the S21?
.... This landlord says I like you and I want you to stay for at least a year (12mo AST). But, just in case I should change my mind, here is a notice to quit which means you have to get out at the end of the 6mo break clause, but if you don't hear from me, then I changed my mind again and you can stay for another two months, and so on and so on.....
As stated by others previously, I believe that it lessens the seriousness of an S21. Once it is routinely handed out tenants will simply ignore it.
When my tenant receives one 4 months into his tenancy, he will talk to his mate who received one at the start of his tenancy who tells him "Ignore it, your landlord forgot to do it at the start. I got one when I moved in to my flat 18 months ago".
Surely at their peril? I could say that Council Tax bills are "routinely handed out" but ignoring them is not a good idea.
The whole point about this is to cover the landlord from their point of view, to make it slightly easier to remove tenants they don't want. That's why I made the comment earlier about "a legal necessity to cover me (the landlord) if I needed to get them out at a later date". I also used to make it clear that if I had no problems with them (the tenant(s)) I would be happy for them to stay on. There needs to be communication between the landlord and tenant otherwise one side or the other will make assumptions and one side or the other will end the tenancy when it is unexpected by the other.
OK then, is tenancy ended if I don't enforce the S21? I don't think so.
Originally Posted by jamesd
What form of tenancy do you think the people have after you've terminated their AST and the initial six months have passed?
Periodic. No questions, the initial period has ended, there is no change to the agreement therefore it becomes periodic. I don't think anyone would try to argue otherwise.
After the tenancy ends, you're trespassing. Simple as that. In practice, if she does show up and wants the place, it'll probably take a month to evict you if you're still there and a judge will be annoyed that the landlady did a vanishing act and might give you a few weeks longer.
Your analogy at the top is terrible, but i'll leave that.
I think that this has come full circle, You would have 4 months to issue an S21, how would you be covered better than I if I issue at 4 months?......
.....This is the precise nature of the problem. If the landlord wants the property back, and intends to enforce the s21 notice, then the tenant is trespassing. If the landlord is happy for the tenant to stay on, and intends not to enforce the s21 notice, then the tenant still has a periodic tenancy. In other words, the legal status of the tenant's occupation of the property depends entirely on the landlord's intentions, which can change at any time, and which the tenant cannot produce in court......
They are both paperwork that have a significant affect on your living in a particular dwelling?
I'm not, so what's wrong with issuing it at month 0 instead of month 4? I can still issue it at month 4 and not enforce it too, so what's your point?
The whole point about this is to cover the landlord from their point of view, to make it slightly easier to remove tenants they don't want. That's why I made the comment earlier about "a legal necessity to cover me (the landlord) if I needed to get them out at a later date".
Are you sure that you have actually been issued with an S21 in your contract?
Even so, the fact that the LA have written to you asking if you want to stay on may have negated the S21 by implication that it is not going to be enforced. If they are acting only as Letting Agents, then maybe they have overstepped their remit. If they are acting as Managing Agents, then I would argue that they have implied that the S21 would not be activated.
Eg, 50% off Papa John’s
Here’s what you need to know
Let us know your thoughts!