Section 21

franklee

BobProperty wrote:

Or even pedantic, but if it gets to court that's what it will be like. Everyone will be pouring over the minutest detail and trying to convince the judge of their side of the argument.
I have learned things from it.

Right, if it's been academic/pedantic lets try this question which is for all landlords and agents that operate the "Sword of Damocles" that is all those who routinely issue S21 notices to all tenants at the start of the tenancy (so that means at least BobProperty, clutton and RosySparkle):

Given littlesaint's posts on this thread, Is it OK for littlesaint to stay put without written permission to do so?

I notice none of you have commented on this one point thus far, so now is the time to speak up.

.
.
.
.

I'll take any silence to mean that it isn't!

clutton_2

""I don't think it's academic for littlesaint who has only recently realised there was an S21 issued at the start of the fixed term that's due to end on 10th March and thus doesn't know if they should leave or not""

i am very sorry indeed that littlesaint is in this "limbo state - but, (and this is not heartless believe me) - but why is it that only now is s/he really reading the AST properly ? If s/he did not really read it properly and ask for clarification before signing it - then it is a little late now to be decrying the landlord.

having said all that, of course littlesaint can stay put, as tenants cannot be evicted without a court order.

franklee

clutton wrote:

having said all that, of course littlesaint can stay put, as tenants cannot be evicted without a court order.

Sorry but i did warn you this is pedantic. I didn't ask if littlesaint *Can* stay put clearly he/she can!

I asked if it was OK to do so.

Two different questions. The one I asked takes into account the consequences of staying put without permission.

Can you answer if it is OK to stay put?

littlesaint

clutton wrote:

"" - but why is it that only now is s/he really reading the AST properly ? If s/he did not really read it properly and ask for clarification before signing it - then it is a little late now to be decrying the landlord.

To be honest, I think we probably just thought it was another part of the tenancy agreement and as there was nothing on it for us to sign, did not check up what it was - if we had to sign it we would definitely checked it out!

I don't think I have had anything like it in previous tenancies, and even if I had, it's never been a problem because I've only stayed in one place for more than a year, due to flatmates moving on, job changes, landlords selling up etc.

The thing that made me look up the form was reading another thread, which mentioned the section 21. That reminded me of the letter we just had and I thought we should check it out.

jamesd

BobProperty wrote:

Now your last comment, "I think they are looking at a six months valid time." Six months from when? Date of issue or date of possession? Doesn't this just risk a 6 monthly rolling "Sword of Damocles"?

As you suggest, it's living constantly under a Sword of Damoclese. That seems to well describe the effect: harassment through the routine serving of bogus termination of tenancy notices.

thesaint

I don't think that a 6 monthly rolling 'Sword of Damocles' would work for the current landlords(who issue at the start) would it? Because of the 2 months notice required, there would always be 2 months where they wouldn't be covered.

The only way around it would be to have 2 S21's running concurrently, is this allowed?

I admit I am thinking about this too much and thoroughly confusing myself.

prudryden

franklee wrote:

Right, if it's been academic/pedantic lets try this question which is for all landlords and agents that operate the "Sword of Damocles" that is all those who routinely issue S21 notices to all tenants at the start of the tenancy (so that means at least BobProperty, clutton and RosySparkle):

Given littlesaint's posts on this thread, Is it OK for littlesaint to stay put without written permission to do so?

I notice none of you have commented on this one point thus far, so now is the time to speak up.


Well, technically, forgetting what the law says for a moment. Both parties signed a contract giving the terms of the contract. The contract finishes on a certain day. At that point, the contract is finished and both parties should go their own way unless they mutually agree to extend the contract.

If I lease a car for a certain period of time, I am expected to bring it back on the day the contract finishes. Probably a poor example, but trying to answer your question.
.
.
.
.

littlesaint

Just wanted to add to my previous post in response to Clutton's. I did not make it clear that we were served the s21 AFTER we signed the AST. We were sent a copy of the AST, along with the s21 and direct debit forms. So we didn't know a s21 would be served when signing up. However, the AST was for one year and the letting agents assured us that with the landlady living overseas we had a reasonable chance of staying on.

Tiglet

franklee wrote:

Given littlesaint's posts on this thread, Is it OK for littlesaint to stay put without written permission to do so?

I notice none of you have commented on this one point thus far, so now is the time to speak up.

.
.
.
.

I'll take any silence to mean that it isn't!

No it's not.

But the problem in littlesaint's case is not that she didn't realise what the Section 21 notice meant. Even if she had been perfectly aware of it from day one, the problem is that the landlady has disappeared, leaving both her and the agents in the dark as to what she wants to do.

That's why I suggested asking the agents to get the landlady to confirm that she wants the property back, and assuming that if she doesn't reply then she doesn't want to enforce the notice. Unless the landlady turns up, littlesaint isn't going to get written permission to stay, and proving that the landlady wasn't taking an interest in things will help to undermine the s21 notice should she end up in court.

We seem to have been discussing things on the assumption that landlords know what they are doing and tenants don't. In this case, it seems that it's the landlady who doesn't know what's happening. She's signed up for a "full management service" from an agency and thinks that she can just leave the country and everything will take care of itself. Instead, she's left everybody in a mess, and she could end up losing perfectly good tenants as a result.

prudryden

Tiglet wrote:

No it's not.

But the problem in littlesaint's case is not that she didn't realise what the Section 21 notice meant. Even if she had been perfectly aware of it from day one, the problem is that the landlady has disappeared, leaving both her and the agents in the dark as to what she wants to do.

That's why I suggested asking the agents to get the landlady to confirm that she wants the property back, and assuming that if she doesn't reply then she doesn't want to enforce the notice. Unless the landlady turns up, littlesaint isn't going to get written permission to stay, and proving that the landlady wasn't taking an interest in things will help to undermine the s21 notice should she end up in court.

We seem to have been discussing things on the assumption that landlords know what they are doing and tenants don't. In this case, it seems that it's the landlady who doesn't know what's happening. She's signed up for a "full management service" from an agency and thinks that she can just leave the country and everything will take care of itself. Instead, she's left everybody in a mess, and she could end up losing perfectly good tenants as a result.

Question Tig - The LL, as you say, has instructed the LA to act as MA. In a sense, is this not similar to a Power of Attorney? If it is, then the LA can take the decision for the LL, which is probably what she expects.

I believe the MA are hedging their bets on this, hoping to get confirmation from the LL, but, will in the end, let the OP stay and use their POA.