Question on S21 timing

Werdnal

franklee wrote: »

Yes technically all correct. However it doesn't address the stress of going though that and importantly how it will make the tenant look to future landlords. I would not want that lot on my references.

I was explaining the process as OP obviously does not understand it. If you read the remainder of my post, in context, I went on to advise him to contact this LL direct and explain as LL probably totally unaware that notice is being issued to. LL may not even understand that an SPT is an option.

If tenant is good, reliable and regular payer, no sane LL would want to go through the costly hassle of an eviction, just because they prefer not to sign another fixed term - after all it is LL that will have to go to court, LL that will have to pay for court action and possible baillif service, and LL that will have to pay the agent again to re-market the vacant property to gain another tenant who may be a total ar$hole! Which is why OP should contact the LL to avoid all the stress and possible bad future reference for ignoring the notice. My guess (and I'd even put money on it), is the LL is totally oblivious to the agent's tactics and would likely be happy to agree an SPT, allowing tenant to remain!

franklee

jamie11 wrote: »

TThe agent has no power to force you to leave, only the landlord can do that and to do so he must take you through a complicated possession case which will cost you nothing, the landlord is responsible for all the costs, only when he has a possession order are you obliged to move and even then you do not have to move until bailiffs arrive to remove you, none of this can be charged to you.

Interesting I thought costs in S21 possession claims usually get awarded against the tenant, so I'd expect the tenant to be paying at least the landlord's court fee and bailiffs costs unless there was good reason not to which the tenant would need to put forward.

DVardysShadow

Too many threads
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4021925
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4023301
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4023581

zas, although you seem to have divided the topic up logically, in fact too many posters are now bumping up against info deficits which are addressed on other threads.

franklee

Werdnal wrote: »

If tenant is good, reliable and regular payer, no sane LL would want to go through the costly hassle of an eviction, just to force them into signing another fixed term - after all it is LL that will have to go to court, LL that will have to pay, and LL that will have to pay the agent again to re-market the vacant property to gain another tenant who may be a total !!!!!!! Which is why OP should contact the LL to avoid all the stress and any bad possible bad future reference for ignoring the notice. My guess (and I'd even put money on it), is the LL is totally oblivious to the agent's tactics and would likely be happy to agree an SPT, allowing tenant to remain!

Of course there may be other reasons why the renewal isn't agreed, the tenant objecting to a rent rise springs to mind. Or perhaps a landlord may wish to sell. So even a great tenant cannot be sure if a S21 will be actioned or not. Plus the agent may want a bit of churn to up their fees, who knows.

I have seen other cases on this forum were good tenants have been evicted as they wanted a periodic tenancy and the agent/LL wanted a new fixed term. Maybe some landlords just want certainty of income for the next year.

It isn't nice living with uncertainty of if a S21 will be actioned or not, no matter now nice the people involved may seem. Once a tenant has proved themselves to be a good tenant there should be no reason to try to curtail any notice they need to be given by serving precautionary S21s. Certainly I would not feel happy remaining on a periodic tenancy unless the S21 was revoked in writing.

BitterAndTwisted

If the OP doesn't want to communicate with the agent or the landlord, they don't want to negotiate a new fixed-term and don't want to be held to ransom by paying an increased rent they could just choose to move out on or before the last day of the AST. That would give the landlord a nasty void-period between tenancies and they have to pay the agent yet another tenant-finding fee. If I was a landlord I know what I'd prefer.

A landlord's and agent's interests don't always coincide. And it suits agents to alarm their landlord's tenants in order to screw yet another fee for a new AST from them.

Werdnal

Franklee, I don't believe an S21 can be revoked once issued.

I agree with all you say, about possible reasons behind the S21 (taking OP's other post topics into account), but the fact remains, until (or unless) the OP contacts the LL, he will never know! In his first post on this thread he asked who to appeal to, and his only hope is to speak the the LL.

franklee

Werdnal wrote: »

Franklee, I don't believe an S21 can be revoked once issued.

I believe a letter from the landlord saying the tenant can remain on a periodic tenancy would void the S21. Certainly it would make the tenant's actions in staying reasonable and could be shown to future landlords should there ever be a concern about why they overstayed the S21.

Werdnal wrote: »

I agree with all you say, about possible reasons behind the S21 (taking OP's other post topics into account), but the fact remains, until (or unless) the OP contacts the LL, he will never know! In his first post on this thread he asked who to appeal to, and his only hope is to speak the the LL.

Yes given the agent sounds rubbish.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

Interesting I thought costs in S21 possession claims usually get awarded against the tenant, so I'd expect the tenant to be paying at least the landlord's court fee and bailiffs costs unless there was good reason not to which the tenant would need to put forward.

The court has discretion to award cost of proceedings. So it could depend on the behaviour of the parties.
But certainly as bailiffs are only called in if tenant disregards the court order, I cannot think of a reason for that cost not to be awarded to landlord in all cases...

franklee wrote: »

I believe a letter from the landlord saying the tenant can remain on a periodic tenancy would void the S21.

This has been discussed many times...
This might make a judge refuse to grant possession according to the opinion of well-known solicitors in the field, though I never came across any actual case (let alone case law).

franklee wrote: »

I have seen other cases on this forum were good tenants have been evicted as they wanted a periodic tenancy and the agent/LL wanted a new fixed term. Maybe some landlords just want certainty of income for the next year.

It should also be considered that while an agent can serve a s.21 notice, only the landlord can start court proceedings.
I don't exactly understand how the pain of evicting a good tenant would help achieving "certainty of income", at the same time I should not assume that people always behave rationally.

G_M

zas31 wrote: »

Sorry, but it does not answer my question. .....

Since S21 does not actually ask the tenant move out by certain date, then what is the procedure for the LL to say "now I have decided you should move out" and what is the minimum notice that the LL should give the tenant in this case? One day in the example above, or even 1 month in OP, is clearly not sufficient, is it?

Did you read it all? Carefully?

"A S21 Notice is not a ‘notice to quit’, nor is it an instruction that the tenant must leave at the end of the two months. It simply tells the tenant that the LL wishes the tenant to leave, and may (may) seek possession of the property. If the LL wishes to do this, he must then obtain a court possession order. However, assuming the FT has ended, and the S21 was served properly (see above), the court will automatically grant the LL possession of the property – no reason for possession is needed."

So, if an S21 has been served, say on month 6, what stops the LL from contacting the tenant on the last day of AST and asking them to leave the following day?

I assume this is a 12 mont tenancy? Since serving the S21 on month 6 of a 6 month tenancy would give the tenant a further 2 months...
So - assuming a 12 month tenancy, S21 served in month 6. On last day of month 12 LL says "I want my property back". Tenant stays. LL then spends 2-3 months waiting for a court date(and tenant starts looking for new home). Tenant either moves out before court hearing or waits for court possession order.
Or ignores court possession order and LL spends another month waiting for bailiffs...

what is the minimum notice that the LL should give the tenant in this case?

The LL does not need to give the tenant any further notice since he has already served the S21 (2 months notice). But he DOES have to go to court. Tenant cannot be forcibly evicted.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977

You are right that a S21 served early in the tenancy removes the 'notice' period at the end. This practice is sometimes described as the 'Sward of Damacles' - it is a nasty practice.

The S21 should be used to give the tenant (at least) two months notice that court possession will be sought if the tenant does not vacate. However some LLs use it 'just in case', when in reality they may be happy for the tenant to stay.


In reality, the best solution is for LL and tenant to communicate with each other about whether they wish the relationship/tenancy to end/continue.

But my post descibes the legal position.

girl_withno_name

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

If the OP doesn't want to communicate with the agent or the landlord, they don't want to negotiate a new fixed-term and don't want to be held to ransom by paying an increased rent they could just choose to move out on or before the last day of the AST. That would give the landlord a nasty void-period between tenancies and they have to pay the agent yet another tenant-finding fee. If I was a landlord I know what I'd prefer.

A landlord's and agent's interests don't always coincide. And it suits agents to alarm their landlord's tenants in order to screw yet another fee for a new AST from them.

And the tenant is likely to have to pay an agent (same or different) the referencing and admin fees again - so the only 'winners' are the agents!