Section 21 notice

zappahey

James_N wrote: »

Why do you wish to rent with the INTENTION of being difficult when you are asked to leave. I know all about the law, and appreciate all the points above which are correct, but it's the thinking I am questioning. You are looking for ways to technically be "tricky".

It's a wonder any landlords rent at all if the things I read on here are common.

That's an interesting viewpoint. A tenant that wants to understand the law on tenancies is intending to be difficult?

I presume you prefer the type of tenant that roles over and takes a shafting?

jamie11

James_N wrote: »

Why do you wish to rent with the INTENTION of being difficult when you are asked to leave. I know all about the law, and appreciate all the points above which are correct, but it's the thinking I am questioning. You are looking for ways to technically be "tricky".

It's a wonder any landlords rent at all if the things I read on here are common.

As a landlord I take objection to your comments, I treat my tenants with the respect they deserve and generally I get the same back. If any agent I employed tried this on with one of my tenants I would sack them. I tell my tenants exactly what the correct procedures are and try to explain that I would only issue a S21 as a last resort. It's the technicalities being observed correctly by both sides that ensures a proper landlord/tenant relationship.

There is nothing 'tricky' about doing things properly.

James_N

I know this board is heavily biased against landlords, so can live with the baying pack snapping at my heels.

However the OP used the phrase: "I'm trying to find a way around it ..." which is a signal of intention to be difficult.

And no landlord EVER got shafted by a dishonest tenant, did they?

happy_as_annie

James_N wrote: »

I know this board is heavily biased against landlords, so can live with the baying pack snapping at my heels.

However the OP used the phrase: "I'm trying to find a way around it ..." which is a signal of intention to be difficult.

And no landlord EVER got shafted by a dishonest tenant, did they?

You're quite right, I did use that phrase. However, what I said I was trying to 'find a way around' was the fact that the agent was trying to put into place a mechanism whereby the landlord could effectively circumvent the need to give proper notice should they require me to leave at any point after the expiration of the AST. The agent stated that the landlord did not want posession in 6 months, therefore why issue the S.21 now? The reason was so it could be used as and when they felt like so that they did not have to issue me with proper 2 months notice and could proceed straight to court for an order for posession. Therefore, I was trying to find a way around their dirty little trick!

As others have alluded to, if it wasn't for the agent being, to use your phrase 'tricky', I would have nothing to find my way around.

Turnbull2000

happy_as_annie wrote: »

You're quite right, I did use that phrase. However, what I said I was trying to 'find a way around' was the fact that the agent was trying to put into place a mechanism whereby the landlord could effectively circumvent the need to give proper notice should they require me to leave at any point after the expiration of the AST. The agent stated that the landlord did not want posession in 6 months, therefore why issue the S.21 now? The reason was so it could be used as and when they felt like so that they did not have to issue me with proper 2 months notice and could proceed straight to court for an order for posession. Therefore, I was trying to find a way around their dirty little trick!

As others have alluded to, if it wasn't for the agent being, to use your phrase 'tricky', I would have nothing to find my way around.

Don't worry. Some posters have form for being a prat. This one recently responded with "get over it" after a stranger let himself into a tenants house unannounced. Just ignore.

happy_as_annie

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Don't worry. Some posters have form for being a prat. This one recently responded with "get over it" after a stranger let himself into a tenants house unannounced. Just ignore.

Haha thanks.

James_N

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Don't worry. Some posters have form for being a prat. This one recently responded with "get over it" after a stranger let himself into a tenants house unannounced. Just ignore.

Not quite the circumstances as you describe, but hey don't let facts stop you taking an argument to the point of rudeness. Your loss.

James_N

happy_as_annie wrote: »

You're quite right, I did use that phrase. However, what I said I was trying to 'find a way around' was the fact that the agent was trying to put into place a mechanism whereby the landlord could effectively circumvent the need to give proper notice should they require me to leave at any point after the expiration of the AST. The agent stated that the landlord did not want posession in 6 months, therefore why issue the S.21 now? The reason was so it could be used as and when they felt like so that they did not have to issue me with proper 2 months notice and could proceed straight to court for an order for posession. Therefore, I was trying to find a way around their dirty little trick!

As others have alluded to, if it wasn't for the agent being, to use your phrase 'tricky', I would have nothing to find my way around.

Would it still be a matter of complaint on your part regarding the S21 if it was properly issued (i.e. at the right time and in the right way), or do you regard any agent or LL issuing an S21 at the beginning of the tenancy as engaging in "dirty tricks"? Elsewhere on this forum there are tenants who've disappeared to Australia owing rent, tenants who think the LL has a legal responsibility to ensure there are no mice (god help the poor owner occupiers who have to shift for themselves), and tenants who wonder why the LL wants them to pay for the mould in the bathroom when they haven't worked out how a window opens. Oh - and tenants whose first question when a hapless contractor turns up unannounced and against clear arrangements with an efficient agent is to try and discover "what punishment, if any, there is..?" (there was no loss, nothing bad happened: regrettable but not a crisis). The list of frankly gormless and helpless tenants goes on.

I KNOW there are bad LL and appalling bad situations that need remedying (look at my own remarks regarding the recent poster lacking a gas inspection), but the lack of balance and the automatic vilification of LL really gets me.

In your book, should no LL or agent seek to have a first line of defence against possibly bad tenants? It's a little like looking at the store detective and getting upset because the store thinks you might - yes YOU might - steal something.

tbs624

James_N wrote: »

Why do you wish to rent with the INTENTION of being difficult when you are asked to leave. I know all about the law, and appreciate all the points above which are correct, but it's the thinking I am questioning. You are looking for ways to technically be "tricky".

It's a wonder any landlords rent at all if the things I read on here are common.

LLs let their properties out because the majority continue to make good money out of doing so.

The OP's LL/LA should quite simply fully acquaint themselves with the law relating to tenancy deposits, their timely registration with a scheme and the penalties of getting it wrong vis a vis the validity of a S21.

Even prior to the tenancy deposit legislation only inexperienced or ill advised LLs served the S21 the same day as the tenancy agreement was signed because of the difficulty of showing that the S21 was served *after* the tenancy had come into force.

As for your bleat that

...this board is heavily biased against landlords..

do bear in mind that many of the respond posters who berate LLs who fail to do their research are themselves LLs, and there are also Ts who have offered support to LLs who come on with queries about their "problem" tenants.

Ultimately however, this is of course a *consumer* webiste and in the LL and T relationship the LL is not the consumer. Any LL who feels unloved on here does of course have the option of using the LL association forums plus sites such as LLzone

franklee

James_N wrote: »

Would it still be a matter of complaint on your part regarding the S21 if it was properly issued (i.e. at the right time and in the right way), or do you regard any agent or LL issuing an S21 at the beginning of the tenancy as engaging in "dirty tricks"?

Can't speak for anyone else but my problem is the LL/agent serving the S21 and at the same time saying a version of he doesn't want possession. This encourages the tenant to ignore the S21 notice and therefore by the time the unwary tenant realises the S21 is about to be actioned he doesn't have time to move. This may leaves the tenant having to either move in a rush or face court action (along with the attendant dent in his references).

What the landlord should do IMO is to only serve the S21 when he has decided he wants the tenant to leave. If he wants to give longer than two months then that's fine so long as he makes clear the notice is meant,

The problem is a tenant simply cannot pack up and move every time a precautionary S21 is served as that could mean moving at the end of every fixed term, every six or twelve months.

That this practice assists the landlord is tosh as the S21 cannot end the tenancy during the fixed term, so for a six month term the landlord has up to four months to serve the S21 and still get the same end date. So it gives the landlord no protection at all against the bad tenant but as this thread shows it alienates the good tenant. If the tenant turns bad early on the landlord could also use a section 8 notice.

I have no problem with a landlord serving a S21 if he does want possession, maybe to sell, maybe to move back in, or for any other reason he wants possession provided he serves the S21 giving a minimum of two months notice and makes clear he stands by it.

The law intended a tenant should get two months notice fair and square. The Sword of Damocles method is simply a way for the landlord to try to dispense with that by serving the notice and then "playing it down" so he has it "up his sleeve" for use later on should he wish to cut the time it takes to remove the tenant. This may fool the unwary tenant however as I said the landlord should know if the tenant is good enough by month four anyway. The landlord should expect a bad reaction from the tenant when he realises the trick. It is also a way of making a periodic tenancy unattractive so the tenant is forced to sign another fixed term and the agent can collect renewal fees from both tenant and landlord.

My stance is that if I deal with people who operate in a shady manner then some of their mud may stick on me. If I'm dealt with fairly then I would do all I could to move when the S21 requests. If not then I wouldn't. The two months notice isn't window dressing it's time a tenant needs to arrange moving.

Besides it is really in landlord's interests to make ignoring a S21 notice routine? That is what the Sword of Damocles method of serving precautionary S21 notices is doing.

It doesn't get the tenancy off to a good start either.