AST ending soon... how to change to periodic?

jjlandlord

mystra wrote: »

Tenancy originally started March 13 2010, was renewed to run from same date in 2011.

Papers for the current AST were signed 31st Jan 2011.

The Section 21 is dated 31st Jan 2011 as well.


I really want to scream! :mad:

So the agreement and the notice are dated 31st Jan 2011 for a tenancy starting 13th March 2011, correct?
If so notice is invalid as served before start of tenancy. Or perhaps more accurately, it in effect related to the previous tenancy and was rendered void and invalid when new tenancy started.

In any case, I doubt the landlord would start eviction procedure because you intend to remain on a periodic tenancy, though obviously you never know.

mystra

jjlandlord wrote: »

So the agreement and the notice are dated 31st Jan 2011 for a tenancy starting 13th March 2011, correct?
If so notice is invalid as served before start of tenancy. Or perhaps more accurately, it in effect related to the previous tenancy and was rendered void and invalid when new tenancy started.

In any case, I doubt the landlord would start eviction procedure because you intend to remain on a periodic tenancy, though obviously you never know.

hmm, sounds promising.

This S21 was attached to the back (sneaky) of the current AST. That is odd then if it is invalid.

It reads -

To; (me the tenant)

From (LL and their contact details etc)

I give you notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 that i require possession of the dwelling house known as (my address)

after 12 March 2012
or at the end of the period of your tenancy which will end after the expiry of two months from the service upon you of this notice

Dated 31 January 2011

Signed by the estate agent woman, contact details etc.

Don't know if that helps

DVardysShadow

mystra wrote: »

hmm, sounds promising.

This S21 was attached to the back (sneaky) of the current AST. That is odd then if it is invalid.

It reads -


Don't know if that helps

Have you got an invitation in writing or email to sign a new tenancy? If you have, I believe that invalidates a prior S21 notice.

mystra

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Have you got an invitation in writing or email to sign a new tenancy? If you have, I believe that invalidates a prior S21 notice.

i had a letter (which i really hope is still on my desk at work now) saying basically the lease is up on 13th March do i want to renew etc... not much detail to it to be honest!

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Have you got an invitation in writing or email to sign a new tenancy? If you have, I believe that invalidates a prior S21 notice.

No, it would not invalidate a s.21 notice. At best it could make a court refuse to grant costs to LL.

Anyway, the notice was clearly served before the new fixed term tenancy started, and is therefore not valid.
It is never a good idea to include a s.21 notice along the tenancy agreement for this very reason...

G_M

A S21 is invalid if

* it is served before the deposit is protected
* it is served before the tenancy starts
* it is served at same time as tenancy agreement
* a subsequent offer of tenancy renewal is made

If served on same day as tenancy is created (and deposit is already registered ie previous year's tenancy) it is valid if it was served after the tenancy is created. However, as date is the same and time is usually not recorded, proof becomes hard. A wise LL therefore seves on a subsequent date to avoid ambiguity.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

A S21 is invalid if

* it is served before the deposit is protected
* it is served before the tenancy starts
* it is served at same time as tenancy agreement
* a subsequent offer of tenancy renewal is made

As per my previous post, (4) is incorrect: An offer to stay on a new tenancy does not invalidate the notice. But an actual new tenancy other than an SPT will invalidate the notice.
(3) will usually be true but because the tenancy agreement is usually exchanged before the tenancy starts.
By statutes is really (1) and (2).

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

As per my previous post, (4) is incorrect: An offer to stay on a new tenancy does not invalidate the notice. But an actual new tenancy other than an SPT will invalidate the notice.
(3) will usually be true but because the tenancy agreement is usually exchanged before the tenancy starts.
By statutes is really (1) and (2).

I have a problem with a subsequent offer to renew not invalidating the S21. Effectively a Landlord can seriously abuse the tenant by delaying conducting negotiations to within the period of a S21 notice, which puts the tenant under increased pressure to accept with perhaps a very few days to the expiry of the S21. I believe that natural justice requires that notice to quit only comes after negotiations have failed - or that the Landlord signifies that negotiations have failed by [re]issuing the S21.

Now, ever since I have known about S21, I have understood that it is invalidated by an offer to renew. I can't provide a source for it, I can only say it is logical. I think it is strange that you believe that costs might be awarded to a tenant in possession hearings if there was an offer to renew after the S21. This does indicate that the law recognises that there is something a bit pongy about such a situation.

I would like to know the truth on this question. On the face of it, the statute law looks quite clear cut, so this particular route to invalidating a Section 21 must be a matter of common law. And to me, this looks an entirely natural judgement to be made in common law or indeed common sense.

Mystra quotes her S21 as saying "I give you notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 that i require possession of the dwelling house known as (my address)". Now simply in the plain sense of things to then send another letter "I invite you to renew your tenancy at a monthly cost of £X" to my mind invalidates the S21 because the invitation indicates that he does not require the property after all. So, I would expect the Landlord to reissue the S21 after the failure of negotiations.

mystra

well i'm well and truly confused by all this LOL


Just got in touch with the agents again about the increase, told them i want to know by the end of today. It's a joke, they are really playing for time.

If they dont give it me by today I want the contact details for the LL myself. Bet they haven't even tried to get hold of her.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think it is strange that you believe that costs might be awarded to a tenant in possession hearings if there was an offer to renew after the S21. This does indicate that the law recognises that there is something a bit pongy about such a situation.

The housing act is crystal clear. Offering a new tenancy or negotiating does not invalidate the notice because only a new tenancy does.
I did not say that costs would be awarded to the tenant, I said that the court may refuse to award the landlord his. Awards for cost are discretionary so the court can obviously consider this fair if the landlord told the tenant e.g. that "they could stay" but then start proceedings.
But the court must grant possession if the notice is valid.

This suggestion about costs is exactly what happened to a LL who posted his experience over on LLZ: The tenant showed the court hie email saying that "they could stay": Possession grant, costs award refused.

S.21(1):

(1) ..., on or after the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy which was a fixed term tenancy, a court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house if it is satisfied—

(a)that the assured shorthold tenancy has come to an end and no further assured tenancy (whether shorthold or not) is for the time being in existence, other than an assured shorthold periodic tenancy (whether statutory or not); and

(b)the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months’ notice in writing]stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house.

If (a) and (b) are satisfied the court has no choice.
Same for s.21(4).

DVardysShadow wrote: »

On the face of it, the statute law looks quite clear cut, so this particular route to invalidating a Section 21 must be a matter of common law

There's no common law issue here. As said the statute above is clear cut.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I can't provide a source for it, I can only say it is logical

It might appear logical, unfortunately statutes say otherwise.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Now, ever since I have known about S21, I have understood that it is invalidated by an offer to renew.

It's being repeated here not only by me, and certainly is the common position on more specialised forums that an offer to renew does not invalidate the notice.