Notice to quit/leave help please.

thesaint

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

S21 of the Housing Act 1988 is quite clear on this. Notice under S21 MUST be given IN WRITING. If it's not IN WRITING, it's not given.

S21 (1)(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.

S21(4)(a)that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice in writing stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section;

The tenant is free to "accept" a defective notice. It would fail if the landlord would try and enforce it, but it is a moot point, as the tenant would be required to give notice in any case.

I wish all the people that are "correcting" me would stop.

Cissi wrote: »

But my comment above was directed at the poster who kept referring to possible clauses in the contract which ARE irrelevant as legally unenforceable.

You are reading another thread, as no one has said anything of the sort in this one.

G_M

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I have to ask, what do you understand the meaning of "exclusive possession" to be if one cannot exclude?

The statute is Part1, S1 Protection From Eviction Act 1977, amended by S29 Housing Act 1988......

"the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household,"

Not sure why you ask here about 'exclusive possession' - this does not seem to appear in the Act. Or are you now referring back to the contract?

Thanks for the reference to the Acts. I am unconvinced (but, as always, open to persuasion!):

The (amended) 1977 Act says more than you quote above:

Section 1. (3A) says:

...the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or

(b) .....

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.

(my bold)

The intention of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 was to propect tenants from harassment by landlords who were attempting to persuade or force tenants to give up their tenancies.

I do not believe a court would conclude that access by a landlord to, for example, undertake a Gas Safety Inspection (even if against the tenant's wishes) is 'conduct likely to cause the.. occupier to give up the occupation of ... the premises".

The same is true of access for the purpose of a viewing.

As I said, I do not dispute that 'quiet enjoyment' is indeed a tenant's contractual right, and that, as tbs said earlier " It would be a very silly LL who pursued that issue", but the LL does also have contractual rights which conflict with the tenant's contractual right.

lighting_up_the_chalice

thesaint wrote: »

The tenant is free to "accept" a defective notice. It would fail if the landlord would try and enforce it, but it is a moot point, as the tenant would be required to give notice in any case.

I wish all the people that are "correcting" me would stop.

Well, perhaps you should stop comparing apples with pears?

A mutually agreed termination is not the same as the unilateral service of notice.

lighting_up_the_chalice

G_M wrote: »

Not sure why you ask here about 'exclusive possession' - this does not seem to appear in the Act. Or are you now referring back to the contract?

Street v Mountford was the seminal case which highlighted exclusive possession.

G_M wrote: »

Thanks for the reference to the Acts. I am unconvinced (but, as always, open to persuasion!):

The (amended) 1977 Act says more than you quote above:

Section 1. (3A) says:
(my bold)

The 88 HA replaced "and" with "or".

G_M wrote: »

The intention of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 was to propect tenants from harassment by landlords who were attempting to persuade or force tenants to give up their tenancies.

I do not believe a court would conclude that access by a landlord to, for example, undertake a Gas Safety Inspection (even if against the tenant's wishes) is 'conduct likely to cause the.. occupier to give up the occupation of ... the premises".

The same is true of access for the purpose of a viewing.

As I said, I do not dispute that 'quiet enjoyment' is indeed a tenant's contractual right, and that, as tbs said earlier " It would be a very silly LL who pursued that issue", but the LL does also have contractual rights which conflict with the tenant's contractual right.

But when does exercising a right become harassment? 1 viewing a week? 1 a day? 1 every hour? Or do the tenants rights to exclude (see above) take precedence?

lighting_up_the_chalice

thesaint wrote: »

Please focus on the (in)accuracy of your own posts.

paddedjohn, it is important that you tell us what your daughters agreement states about "Access for viewings".

Statute over-rides contract.

neverdespairgirl

Quiet enjoyment is, as I understand it, common law rather than statute.

G_M

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Street v Mountford was the seminal case which highlighted exclusive possession.
Quite how a ruling that distinguishes between tenancies (exclusive occupation) and licences is relevant here I fail to understand. The issues being discussed are
1) whether 'quiet enjoyment' is a statutory right and
2) whether the 1977 Act affords a tenant an absolute right to 'peace and comfort"

The 88 HA replaced "and" with "or".
Thanks for the partial clarification. But where? (*)

But when does exercising a right become harassment? 1 viewing a week? 1 a day? 1 every hour? Or do the tenants rights to exclude (see above) take precedence?

That of course, as you well know, is a matter for the courts.

As with most judgements, there is clarity at either extreme, and a grey centre area:
* 1 viewing a week is a) reasonable and b) clearly not "likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation"
* 1 every hour would probobly (though even this not certain) constitute harassment, if kept up for any length of time (No, I'm not going to define the length of time for you!)

Between these extremes is the grey area that might/might not constitute harassment, depending largely on what other factors were involved

* additionally

(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts ...

makes clear that Parliament intended to permit LLs to 'do.. the acts' (eg conduct a viewing) if they can prove reasonable grounds.

Again, this Act was not passed to give tenants guaranteed rights to 'quiet enjoyment' or similar, it was passed to protect them from harrasment by Rackman and his ilk.

paddedjohn

G_M, I wrote in my OP that she was on periodic and I think after reading your helpful post I've got all the info I need regarding notice so thanks again.

thesaint, I don't know what is written in the contract about access for viewings but I do know that the locks were changed some time back and that my daughter will only allow viewings if it suits her, end of regardless of what the agent says.

paddedjohn

thesaint wrote: »

Could you quote the statute for access for viewings? I can't find it.



paddedjohn, you could do your daughter a huge favour by looking at the contract.

You have asked for help; If you only want comments on one dimension of this issue, then you should have made no comment about it in your opening post.

If you read my OP again you will see that my question was about the notice, I stated in my post that I already had the other point covered.

G_M

paddedjohn wrote: »

G_M, I wrote in my OP that she was on periodic and I think after reading your helpful post I've got all the info I need regarding notice so thanks again.

thesaint, I don't know what is written in the contract about access for viewings but I do know that the locks were changed some time back and that my daughter will only allow viewings if it suits her, end of regardless of what the agent says.

Glad to hear you've got the info you need.

Apologies for the legalistic navel-gazing that took over your thread.