Landlord is serving an Accelerated Possession on s 21 after has withdraw a s 8 claim

rpc

franklee wrote: »

The best thing Eduoard could do is to serve a fresh section 21 and start the eviction clock ticking on solid ground.

Indeed (especially given the responses on both threads). I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome, there doesn't seem to have been anything definitive. Given the wait for court, an extra two months wait to get the notice correct beyond doubt just seems sensible.

There is no need for perjury from the tenant.

There is never a need, and posting about it on an internet forum is just plain daft!

Amanda3

Flashmanchop wrote: »

What do you class as soon?

Why not just go now!

End of july.

Amanda3

Flashmanchop wrote: »

What do you class as soon?

Why not just go now!

Exam + trainee.

Amanda3

molerat wrote: »

So you would be willing to commit perjury ?

No, because in fact from the beginning I though that both envelopes came the same date since I was not able to properly read the date on the second one and I my mind was overcharged with my exams. I have checked my notes : in fact I have received on 27 march 2013, one letter from landlord and another one from my solicitor (regarding my harassment complaint). From that date I have stopped taking somes notes due my exams preparation.

Amanda3

rpc wrote: »

And Eduoard can print off this thread as evidence!

I am not lying, if he show thread at the court I can show my harassment notes equally : it is not a lye, it is just that because due to the fact I am on the rush I did not have the time to check the exact day.

Please note from the beginning I was saying that I have received one letter before another. The confusion was coming from the fact I have mixed one of this letter date a third party's letter (my solicitor).

BitterAndTwisted

Edouard on the other thread has got rather short shrift now that he's revealed his daughter is a letting-agent, the OP has been been ripped off by her firm for the grand sum of £800 and that the agent-daughter has also assaulted the OP.

This scum-bag landlord deserves what's coming to him, I reckon. And that's a visit to court to find his S21 is invalid and that the Council find out he's been running an unlicensed HMO and they come down on him like a ton of bricks

franklee

rpc wrote: »

How can the cheque be in the same envelope as a served notice yet arrive on different days? If you can prove to a civil standard that the cheque arrived after the notice was served, then you will defeat the notice.

The OP has said all along there were two envelopes and two letters.

What the tenant must do is clearly and accurately state the facts and raise the issue of the S21 service timing. However it's the landlord bringing the case to court so the burden of proof is on him. It's always the landlord who has to show the section 21 was properly served, it's the landlord who obtains any proofs of posting etc.

What the tenant should do is raise the issue that both cheque and S21 were posted first class on the 25th in different envelopes so in their opinion the S21 is invalid. It would help if the tenant can prove both items were posted first class. It doesn't really matter that the envelopes aren't date stamped as the day of posting cannot be before the covering letters were written and they are both dated 25th. Both items regardless of when they were stamped or received will be deemed served on the 27th. Thus the section 21 notice was not received before the deposit cheque and so the requirement to return the deposit before serving the S21 isn't met.

Now a judge may let the landlord off this oversight but I wouldn't risk it specially as the landlord failed to protect the deposit and didn't return the deposit until the last moment. He could easily have served the section 21 a few days after sending the deposit cheque.