I have been trying to get a definitive answer re: the advantages/disadvantages of issuing a s21 at the beginning of a tenancy. So far, no luck! What I have found out is that you have to be very careful to get it right. There is also some question whether a judge would see it as contradictory i.e. on one hand you are telling the tenant glad to have you, on the other hand I want you to leave. Sinton Andrews and Winkworths have told me that they do not issue S21 at the start because of this contradictory possibility.
At the moment, I am going to err on not issuing a S21 until I need it.
Had an interesting conversation with my father in law about the S21 issue. As a district judge, he deals with these frequently. And I'm afraid it's not good news. In other areas such as late payment of rent, judges are entitled to some discretion. But in the case of S21 notices the law is very clear - if a valid S21 has been served, the court has no option but to uphold it. Discussions about renewal, even in writing, have no impact on the validity of the notice. The only thing that will work is a new tenancy agreement.
This seems to contradict to other information on this MSE thread that states only a confirmation of not wanting you to leave would be enough to invalidate the s21.
Also what is the LL gave writen permission that you could stay but put "Without predjudice" at the top would this be admissable if you went to court?
If freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.
Babe ruth. there is no point issuing a Section 21 at the start of the tenancy, only when you want to give your tenant notice to leave.
You can only issue it 4 months into the tenancy. Best to get a good tenancy agreement signed first! In any event, if a landlord asked me to acknowledge a Section 21 notice just as I was about to move in, I would tell him to sod-off and find myself another property to let. It's like asking the tenant to leave before he's even moved in! :mad:
This seems to contradict to other information on this MSE thread
Thanks for pointing this out, very interesting! It does indeed contradict the information in this thread, particularly from me But the credibility of the source isn't verified. Also we do not know specifically the questions asked. An S21 is a mandatory ground but only if it is valid. I would like to quiz the poster on exactly what was said and get a bit more detail, is that possible? It may well be that S21 notices are rarely challenged on this basis as not many tenants would realise to attempt it or that some of the detail has got lost in writing up the original conversation.
8.If the landlord agrees to the tenant extending the tenancy for say a
week or ten days after the section 21 Notice expires then the Notice
will be void and would have to be served again. Never agree an extension
for a short period of time without the consent of the landlord, and
warning him his Notice would be void.
9.If the landlord or agent writes offering to extend the tenancy any
Section 21 Notice served prior to the letter or at the same time as the
letter will be technically void, as there is a conflict between the two
actions.
Certainly that's enough reason to challenge the S21, so at the very least the landlord is taking a pretty big risk if he does give out contradictory instructions to the tenant. That said I'm convinced by Marveen, anything else just doesn't make sense.
Ok thanks for that info. So it seems that the poster I quoted from may have been mistaken or just trying to wind people up, either way there was never a response to questions posed to him according to other posts I have seen there.
But what about the second part of my question, marking a letter giving you permission to stay "Without predjudice" would it still be admissible in court?
Does anyone have a link to the actually wording of the law regarding s21 and the housing act, as this should also tell us what makes s21 invalid. If a case ever went to court this could be quoted to the judge if he mistakenly believes an s21 can only be invalidated by a new contract.
If freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.
But what about the second part of my question, marking a letter giving you permission to stay "Without prejudice" would it still be admissible in court?
Probably, yes. I think is the answer. Have a read of this:
As far as I can understand it there has to be a dispute before an offer can be made "without prejudice" - if the LL is writing to say you can stay on there is no dispute.
Does anyone have a link to the actually wording of the law regarding s21 and the housing act, as this should also tell us what makes s21 invalid. If a case ever went to court this could be quoted to the judge if he mistakenly believes an s21 can only be invalidated by a new contract.
"Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.
Replies
At the moment, I am going to err on not issuing a S21 until I need it.
I read on another forum here the following post:
This seems to contradict to other information on this MSE thread that states only a confirmation of not wanting you to leave would be enough to invalidate the s21.
Also what is the LL gave writen permission that you could stay but put "Without predjudice" at the top would this be admissable if you went to court?
You can only issue it 4 months into the tenancy. Best to get a good tenancy agreement signed first! In any event, if a landlord asked me to acknowledge a Section 21 notice just as I was about to move in, I would tell him to sod-off and find myself another property to let. It's like asking the tenant to leave before he's even moved in! :mad:
Thanks for pointing this out, very interesting! It does indeed contradict the information in this thread, particularly from me
Marveen Smith has written about this:
http://www.painsmith.co.uk/painsmithfiles/articles/termination.doc
Page 5:
8.If the landlord agrees to the tenant extending the tenancy for say a
week or ten days after the section 21 Notice expires then the Notice
will be void and would have to be served again. Never agree an extension
for a short period of time without the consent of the landlord, and
warning him his Notice would be void.
9.If the landlord or agent writes offering to extend the tenancy any
Section 21 Notice served prior to the letter or at the same time as the
letter will be technically void, as there is a conflict between the two
actions.
Painsmith specialise solely in Landlord and Tenant Law:
http://www.painsmith.co.uk/
Certainly that's enough reason to challenge the S21, so at the very least the landlord is taking a pretty big risk if he does give out contradictory instructions to the tenant. That said I'm convinced by Marveen, anything else just doesn't make sense.
But what about the second part of my question, marking a letter giving you permission to stay "Without predjudice" would it still be admissible in court?
Does anyone have a link to the actually wording of the law regarding s21 and the housing act, as this should also tell us what makes s21 invalid. If a case ever went to court this could be quoted to the judge if he mistakenly believes an s21 can only be invalidated by a new contract.
Legal Factsheet
As far as I can understand it there has to be a dispute before an offer can be made "without prejudice" - if the LL is writing to say you can stay on there is no dispute.
More technical analysis here
Section 21 Details
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.