LA not acknowledged notice

Flibsey

we had to cut it fine. the house was there, available, has a great landlord and we didnt want to lose out on the chance of a lifetime. we've had nothing but nightmares from day 1 of the tenancy here and this was a ticket out.....

and the new paperwork has been signed.

BitterAndTwisted

They won't "swing for it"! If you notice was not received in good time, or they don't acknowledge that it was, they would be quite within their rights to claim the unpaid rent from your deposit.

Just cross your fingers that they or the landlord are happy to accept that you have given the appropriate notice. I would warn you that this may not be the time to appear inflexible about viewings.....

girl_withno_name

Flibsey wrote: »

well they can sing for it.

and where is the legal paperwork stating I need to give 2 days for it to be recieved? since when has royal mail ever been THAT reliable? I paid for next day to make sure it got there on time. it is not my fault he took 6 days to collect it.

and by "I paid" I mean "my husband the tenant" before anyone gets pedantic about that.

You didn't pay for guaranteed next day delivery though, you sent the notice Recorded Delivery ...

BitterAndTwisted

The circumstances under which you felt obliged to take another rental are nothing to do with your current landlord.

I suggest that you prepare to have two lots of rent to pay quite soon

Flibsey

girlwithnoname yes we did pay, we paid for recorded WITH gurarnteed next day. £5.60.

Werdnal

But even guaranteed next day delivery requireds a signature - and if there was no one available to sign for it, they cannot deliver! You need to ensure YOUR notice arrives in time to comply with the 1 month time scale. If the agent didn't pick it up in time, you have failed to ensure it arrived and therefore failed to give notice in time.

NEVER send anything time sensitive by a recorded or signed for delivery route - it is doomed to failure. Under notice requirements, a letter posted first class is deemed as served 2 days later. Doesn't matter how reliable Royal Mail is - if you had proof of posting 1st class, and LL/Agent did throw a wobbly, you have proof you complied with the required notice process. As it is, you have not ensured the notice arrived in time, therefore you have not given valid notice.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but you have failed to give notice correctly, you you are legally bound to pay for another month's rent. LL/LA will probably see you in court!

DVardysShadow

Werdnal wrote: »

But even guaranteed next day delivery requireds a signature - and if there was no one available to sign for it, they cannot deliver! .....
I know this is not what you want to hear, but you have failed to give notice correctly, you you are legally bound to pay for another month's rent. LL/LA will probably see you in court!

I think that is arguable in OP's favour in this particular case. The agent has mail held and collects from RM. So I would argue it is delivered the moment it is available for collection [equivalent of hitting the doormat] and it seems that OP has a record of when it was available.

It is not acceptable to me that in this circumstance the time of delivery is when the agent rolls up to collect, because he could thwart a lot of tenants' notices in this way.

tbs624

Flibsey wrote: »

no. you're a bit mixed up there. it was meant to be received by the 29th june. we sent it in good time with a guaranteed next day delivery. the 3rd of july is when the LA COLELCTED the letter that had been sitting in his local post office for 6 days.:rotfl:his "office" is an answering service and PO box plus mail transfer from PO box to his local post office. but shhhh. we're not meant to know that bit. we're meant to still think it's his "office" answering calls.... but we've VISITED his "office" and it's this place
http://www.crc-essex.co.uk/offices_basilica_house.html


our rental periods are 28th-29th. so 28th of one month to 29th of the next.
.

Your tenancy periods should run for one calendar month, not for one month and a day or two extra. If your original Fixed Term ended on the 27th, then subsequent tenancy periods will run from 28th of one month until the 27th of the next ( assuming rent payable pcm)

Which address is given in the tenancy agreement as being the relevant one for service of notices ( clause usually mentions s48 LL&TA 1987)?

If your notice has been signed for as received at that specific address then the date on which it was signed for there under your recorded delivery is what counts.

londonlydia

I think that what some people are saying is that *normally* if you send a letter recorded, and the person isnt there so cant sign for it, then the landlord can take it from when he picks it up (which may be true, though seems a bit unfair, because you could argue that the little card there saying its located somewhere to pick up is just like having an envelope sitting unopened on a mat).

However, this is a bit of a more complex case, because in this situation it appears that the letters go to a PO Box, not a rediential address, and the LL pays for a mail service to deliver it to the local post office. I think there's an argument *in this specific case* therefore that when the local post office got it, that date can be taken as the first date of notice, given that the post office acts as the sort of first recipient for all his post if you get what I mean...

Annisele

The only thing I can find about this is Blunden v Frogmore Investments - which isn't on all fours with the OP's situation. That was a commerical let, and LL was trying to serve notice on T. But, FWIW:

Appeal by the claimant tenant ('T') from a decision of HH Judge Howarth dismissing T's claim pursuant to CPR Part 24 as having no real prospect of success. In 1996 T was the tenant of a retail unit in the Corn Exchange, Manchester. The building was substantially damaged following the IRA bombing of the nearby Arndale Centre. It was common ground that the extent of the damage to T's unit was such as to entitle the defendant landlord ('L') to invoke the terms of a break clause in the lease of the unit. The only issue was whether L's notice of termination had been validly served on T. L's evidence was that: (a) it had sent a copy of the relevant notice to T's last known address, the demised premises, and the address for T given in the lease when it was executed; and (b) it had affixed a copy of the notice to the demised premises. It was common ground and/or assumed in T's favour for the purposes of this appeal that: (i) all the notices sent by post had been returned undelivered by the post office; and (ii) T had not had access to the premises and thus had not seen the notice affixed to them because the premises had been boarded up by L following the service of a dangerous building notice by the local authority. T contended that, in the circumstances set out above, the lease had not been lawfully determined since no notice of determination had been properly served upon him.
HELD: (1) Postal service under the terms of the lease did not require that the notice in question should have come to the attention of the intended recipient, nor even that it should have been delivered. It was sufficient if the notice was "sent by post", which had undoubtedly happened in the present case. (2) It was unnecessary, therefore, to express a concluded view as to the efficacy of affixing a copy of the notice to premises to which L knew that T could not gain access because of his own act of having boarded them up, although (a) (per Robert Walker LJ) as there was no allegation of bad faith against L, service by that method was effective; but (b) (per Schiemann LJ) it would be unjust to hold that T had been validly served.
Appeal dismissed.