Section 21

prudryden

franklee wrote:

I'd say it depends on when the expiry date on the S21 was. Usually a S21 says expiry date: after dd/mm/yy.

If this date was on the six months point then yes the tenant can leave at six months. The tenant would not need to give notice to do this as the landlord has already done so by issuing the S21. Isn't this is what the landlord would do anyway if he wanted the tenant to leave on the break?

If the S21 expiry date isn't till the 12 months point then I'm not sure what happens. It then comes down to can the tenant leave before the S21 expires? If there isn't a break then the answer is not during the fixed term. I am not sure of the answer if there is a break or a periodic tenancy. Most pople would say no I guess.

Passes was probably the wrong word. I was thinking of expiry. In the above, you say a S21 says expiry date: after dd/mm/yy. Then, does that mean they never really expire?

franklee

prudryden wrote:

Passes was probably the wrong word. I was thinking of expiry. In the above, you say a S21 says expiry date: after dd/mm/yy. Then, does that mean they never really expire?

No?! It's just a way of ensuring the notice isn't too short. If, in the example below, it expired ON December 31st then it would to too short. I think it can expire on January 1st if you want but people often don't do that. The main thing is the notice has to be long enough.

http://www.letlink.co.uk/letting-factsheets/factsheets/factsheet-21---section-21---notice-requiring-possession-of-an-assured-shorthold-tenancy.html

The notice should be dated in accordance with the provisions above. Also, a notice should not be dated to expire on or before the last day of the tenancy as this would be invalid. For example, where the tenancy was due to expire on December 31st, then the section 21 notice could be served on or before October 31st, and the notice dated to expire ‘after December 31st'.

Obviously you are concerned so why not ask your agent this and get back to us, see what they think? I'd like to hear too.

BobProperty

franklee wrote:

......I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation of why serving a S21 at the start is better than waiting till you want the tenant to leave. ......

I can answer that one. It's so you have remembered to issue it and, more importantly, you get the tenant to acknowledge they have received it. The theory being it is easier to do so at the start of the tenancy when the tenant wants the tenancy than 1, remembering the right time to do it later and 2, proving that you have served it correctly later.

franklee

Cheers Bob,

Isn't proof of postage enough? You don't need the tenants signature.

Do you worry about accidentally evicting a tenant you'd like to keep? If you wanted them to stay how do you deal with that and when? I would be very worried about staying once the S21 expires without written permission that it was OK.

clutton_2

""accidentally evicting a tenant you'd like to keep? "" - you just can't "accidentally" evict someone !!

on the one occasion i have evicted a tenant (and embarking on a second as we speak) its hells own teeth of a job !

BobProperty

franklee wrote:

Cheers Bob,

Isn't proof of postage enough? You don't need the tenants signature.

But if they are the "tenant from hell" they'll turn up in court and say "never received it" and you are back at "square 1".

franklee wrote:

Do you worry about accidentally evicting a tenant you'd like to keep? If you wanted them to stay how do you deal with that and when? I would be very worried about staying once the S21 expires without written permission that it was OK.

It's one of the few times and ways the landlord can get an edge in the situation. I used to tell the tenant that it was just a legal necessity to cover me (the landlord) if I needed to get them out at a later date, but obviously it could not start to take affect until the initial tenancy period was over anyway.

thesaint

But if they are the "tenant from hell" they'll turn up in court and say "never received it" and you are back at "square 1".

You wouldn't be at square one would you, if the law only allowed for a correct serving to be deemed correct if it contained a signature of receipt then no one would get evicted surely?

MJMum

You wouldn't be at square one would you, if the law only allowed for a correct serving to be deemed correct if it contained a signature of receipt then no one would get evicted surely?

But the courts tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant, at least the first time. I have seen EXACTLY the above happen.

BobProperty

thesaint wrote:

You wouldn't be at square one would you, if the law only allowed for a correct serving to be deemed correct if it contained a signature of receipt then no one would get evicted surely?

mjmum wrote:

But the courts tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant, at least the first time. I have seen EXACTLY the above happen.

The point about getting the signature at the start is that you have near guaranteed proof that the tenant has received the S21. It is OTT as far as the law goes, but gives the landlord the proof that the S21 has been served.
Given that this is civil law and the "balance of " probability(is it?) has to be met then one person saying it has been served (posted) and the other saying they never received it, is 50-50 so there's no "tipping" of the "balance" in either direction, as no judge is going to take the word of one party over the other. Natural justice dictates that the possibility of the S21 being lost in the post or similar would mean that the scenario mjmum outlined is the most likely result.

prudryden

BobProperty wrote:

The point about getting the signature at the start is that you have near guaranteed proof that the tenant has received the S21. It is OTT as far as the law goes, but gives the landlord the proof that the S21 has been served.
Given that this is civil law and the "balance of " probability(is it?) has to be met then one person saying it has been served (posted) and the other saying they never received it, is 50-50 so there's no "tipping" of the "balance" in either direction, as no judge is going to take the word of one party over the other. Natural justice dictates that the possibility of the S21 being lost in the post or similar would mean that the scenario mjmum outlined is the most likely result.[/quote

It was pointed out to me by my agents that one of the potential problems in giving an order to vacate at the same time as you are given a contract to let is that a judge may rule arbitrarily that it constitutes a sham. Why tell me you want me to stay and leave at the same time?

While I was in their office they showed me a legal letting course booklet. They said they would send me the relevant pages with case histories. I am waiting breathlessly for it to arrive.