Served Notice

Werdnal

Brand0, you made a choice to become a LL, therefore you had a choice to gen up on all the legislation and rules and regs surrounding becoming that LL. You chose not to ... ignorance is not an excuse in a court of law.

No-one is suggesting the OP's LL is scum or out to con him out of anything, but the onus is on the LL to get the notice correct, otherwise the tenant's right to reside at the property remains until the LL does so. LL has granted a legally binding tenancy for the OP to rent the property, and until LL legally ends that tenancy, the OP can stay there.

All the legislation is out there and anyone entering into the LL business - yes even one property is running a letting business in the eyes of the law, should take it upon themselves to learn how to do it. If you don't the Karma, comes back at you. You are attempting to suggest that laws surrounding lettings does not matter if you don't know they exist - try telling a judge that!

Mrs_Imp

Brand0 wrote: »

The problem with all you regulations queen's is that you are treating the LL as an experienced businessman who is purposely bending rules to take advantage...

The LL should know about the rules and regulations before letting his house. It's just the same as any other job. You would expect your Dr to have learned about medicine and how to treat people, and your bus driver to have passed his driving test. Why not expect the person who owns the roof over your head to know what they're doing?

The OP has spoken to their Council about the situation. If they leave without a valid S21 then they will classed as intentionally homeless and will not be housed. I've seen it happen. A young couple were served an invalid S21, but wanted to 'do the right thing' so they left. The council housing officer sat there in a meeting with myself and them and said 'We have already discussed the invalid S21 with you. You decided to leave anyway, therefore you are intentionally homeless and we cannot help you'

Maybe if the landlord wants to make it financially worth their while to leave then they could, but if the OP wants help from the Council, then they NEED a valid S21.

I have sympathy with the LL for getting in to a mess, but some of it could easily have been prevented with just half an hour's research on the internet.

franklee

Brand0 wrote: »

I am a landlord and my tenants money is safely deposited now, but wasn't at first as I had no idea. Not because I was using it for drugs and hookers! And even if I WAS - if every penny went back on time with no problem, how does it adversely affect the tenant? How does it affect OP if no tax is paid? It doesn't! The OP is falling foul of the main pitfall of being a tenant. Simple.

This is the problem with the world today - no one cares about spirit. Bottom line here is that the OP doesn't want the hassle of moving. No more, no less. It's that shameful US culture of looking in the rulebook to see if one can claim rather than looking at the man you are claiming against.

PALMSKI - save yourself. It's too late for the others! You'll sleep better at night on a worse bed than you have now if you do the right thing than doing the wrong thing. And you'll be proud.

To the rest rest of you 30 miles per hour drivers, stay away from all mirrors and teach your kids the way of good intentions whilst they still have a chance.

Spirit, like this from you in another thread? (My bolding).

Brand0 wrote: »

I had no idea about most of this until very recently - the tennants' deposit is protected, we have always used letting agents so safety certs are in place, the insurance is the proper one, the building society knew of the situation as it was not meant to be long term. We didn't bother declaring income as the first year was a nightmare in terms of getting our rent anyway, then it was kinda forgotten as we looked to sell then the wife fell pregnant. The 'fraud' was not intentional - well I guess it kind was, but on a very small scale (we put 20% aside just in case), and the tax credit thing is something I'd never considered before.

The house has been rented out for the last three years, so I can only see us having to pay the full CGT PLUS backdated tax on rental income.

The capital gain is around 175k. Many would not sympathise and think we are being greedy, but even with this gain we're struggling to find a house in our new area that we can afford - this will be a major set back.

If we we're to move back into the house, would this help? And how long would we need to live there for?

What if we redirected all our mail back there/resigned the local eletoral register/paid the council tax etc, keeping the tennants for another year?

Ulfar

Wow Brand0, so you have admitted too - benefit fraud, tax evasion and failure to comply with deposit regulation.

Did you also ask for permission from your mortgage lender, get switched to BTL mortgage ?

I have no sympathy for you, you not only weren't ignorant of some of the laws, you deliberately ignored them. Not only is this wrong but highly stupid. You should look up the potential penalties that HMRC can impose, its not just a case of paying the tax you would have owed.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Palmski, don't lose sight of the fact that you need to find somewhere new to live. Would it be possible to move into a smaller, cheaper property (eg kids all in one room) for six months until your wife finds work and you get back on your feet financially?

N79

To the OP

While I agree with all the posters above that the S21 notice is invalid and that you would be well within your legal (and moral) rights to stay put and defeat the LL's possession in the courts this will only buy you time (maybe 6-8 months) and they will gain possession eventually.

However you sound like you are a less than "ideal" tenant in terms of income / referencing / being able to afford fees etc and you have suggested that it will be very difficult for you to find a new property. If you fall out with your current LL and force them through the courts twice to evict then obviously you will get a bad reference from your current LL. This will make it even harder for you to find a new property (and will probably restrict you to lower quality properties / areas).

For this reason I strongly suggest that you try to negotiate an agreed solution with your LL (as has been suggested, but not emphasised by some above) rather than a hard nosed legal approach which will destroy your relationship with the LL. As part of the negotiation you could ask for extra time and an agreed reference, for example, in return for leaving "peacefully" at the end of the agreed date or whatever suits you and your LL best.

This way you increase, not reduce, your chances of finding a good new home.

FireWyrm

N79 wrote: »

While I agree with all the posters above that the S21 notice is invalid and that you would be well within your legal (and moral) rights to stay put and defeat the LL's possession in the courts this will only buy you time (maybe 6-8 months) and they will gain possession eventually.

Its not a question of morality. The LL has failed entirely to follow the law and issue a legal eviction. As it has already been pointed out, the Council can and will refuse to help if the OP is silly enought to obey this cack-handed effort at a S21.

N79 wrote: »

However you sound like you are a less than "ideal" tenant in terms of income / referencing / being able to afford fees etc and you have suggested that it will be very difficult for you to find a new property.

Op has already stated that the main issue is the upfront fees required by LAs that is the sticking point. That being the case, the OP would be wise to sit tight and follow the Council proceedures who ARE duty bound to house him and his family if he cannot find a place to live by the time he is LEGALLY evicted.

N79 wrote: »

If you fall out with your current LL and force them through the courts twice to evict then obviously you will get a bad reference from your current LL.

Absolutely irrelevant. A 'reference' is a piece of paper that doesnt put a roof over your head. The OP MUST NOT deviate from the Council proceedure for fear of being permanently homeless and in a far worse position than he is in right now. This mythical 'reference' isnt worth the paper it isnt printed on. Besides, I've never needed one and anechdotal evidence suggests many people rent privately without issue. In any case, should the issue arise with a private landlord, the OP need only explain the blatant illegality and complete ameturish behaviour of his current LL.

N79 wrote: »

This will make it even harder for you to find a new property (and will probably restrict you to lower quality properties / areas).

The OP is already facing this fact since he is finding it hard to come up with the inflated fees often demanded by the more (dare I say it) reputable LAs on the market.

N79 wrote: »

For this reason I strongly suggest that you try to negotiate an agreed solution with your LL (as has been suggested, but not emphasised by some above) rather than a hard nosed legal approach which will destroy your relationship with the LL.

No. The Tenant must not tip his hand at this point. It is not for him to tell the LL how to do his job.

N79 wrote: »

As part of the negotiation you could ask for extra time and an agreed reference, for example, in return for leaving "peacefully" at the end of the agreed date or whatever suits you and your LL best.

And what pray tell suits the tenant best? Being left alone to enjoy HIS home without let or hinderance from an incompetant LL. The LL has utterly failed to understand even the basics of letting law and now you suggest that it is the responsibility of the tenant to school his LL in the correct procedure to evict him along with his family, costing him time, effort, money and anxiety in the process.

N79 wrote: »

This way you increase, not reduce, your chances of finding a good new home.

Rubbish. The OPs best bet is the council. It's THEM he has to please, not you, me or his LL.

tbs624

@ N79 -look back at what the OP says:

palmski wrote: »

However my problem is we are left with little money each month to live on. Estate agents want £1000 + just to keep a house for you and we just cannot get that sort of money also we have poor credit scores due to previous relationships.

and

palmski wrote: »

I have paid my rent by DD every month even when LL increased it, I have spent 100s of pounds doing Garden and Various other bits and i have been an ideal tenant for them by looking after their once home.

Tagging the OP as not being an ideal T is a tad unfair IMO.

Not having the funds for exorbitant LA fees is becoming more of an issue for many Ts.

The fact that the OPs currently have little money left over at the month end has apparently not meant that they have failed to pay their rent in full and on time. What do most LLs want ? That's right, a T who looks after the property and who pays their rent as per the tenancy agreement.

Many LLs would fully understand a T being unable to produce a reference from a current/previous LL when the LL has failed to deal properly with inventories and tenancy deposit registration.

The fact that the OP has a less than perfect credit history didnt prevent them from getting this tenancy and it won't prevent them from getting another one. Their own bank records etc can show evidence that they paid their rent on time and they can take film/photogarphs of the property/garden etc to show tha they have looked after the place. They could even invite the new potential LL to come and take a look.

Their best bet, if the Council provision isn't up to scratch, is to seek out an accredited private LL who self manages and does not rely on proforma LA style forms and tricksy rent guarantee insurances.

The LL having to go back to court is hardly the T's fault, when the LL has scuppered his own service of a valid s21.

Irn-Bru-Kid

Just a quick question. Now that the OP has asked the LL if the deposit was protected and the LL has admitted that it is not.

Can the LL now put the money in a scheme? And what impact will that have on the OP?

Ulfar

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

Just a quick question. Now that the OP has asked the LL if the deposit was protected and the LL has admitted that it is not.

Can the LL now put the money in a scheme? And what impact will that have on the OP?

No, that was one of the loopholes the localism act changed. Any deposits taken prior to the act becoming law should have been protected within 30 days to prevent a breach and the ability for the tenant to sue for damages.

I am not even sure the schemes will take a late deposit now, they used too before the changes.

The best the Landlord could do is give the money back and hope for the best.