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

Amanda3

keyser666 wrote: »

he served the S21 and the cheque the same day. Are you reading the other forum? All he has to do is resubmit it

So, implicitly this mean that you agree that the present s21 notice is invalid.

rpc

Amanda3 wrote: »

Ok, but this does not change anything to the fact the cheque was certainly served the same day or after (I do not remember exactly but I am sure at 95% that was one day after the notice). The landlord has only provided a certificate for the s21 notice but not for the cheque.

Except the cheque was received either before or at the same time as the notice was deemed served. You said so yourself and you paid a solicitor to look at it. Just because your solicitor didn't tell you what you wanted to hear doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Cheques are not "served" so there would be no certificate of service.

You could try to make your argument in court, but you may well lose. If a solicitor told me that the notice was OK then I would normally believe them. Why do you think you know better than a legal professional?

Amanda3

rpc wrote: »

Except the cheque was received either before or at the same time as the notice was deemed served. You said so yourself and you paid a solicitor to look at it. Just because your solicitor didn't tell you what you wanted to hear doesn't mean that they are wrong.

I have never said that the cheque was received either before or at the same time as the notice was deemed served : It is the opposite!

rpc wrote: »

Cheques are not "served" so there would be no certificate of service.

You could try to make your argument in court, but you may well lose. If a solicitor told me that the notice was OK then I would normally believe them. Why do you think you know better than a legal professional?

Cheque was provide in a mail that has been 'served'. The purpose of the 'date of service' is to know when the letter was really received.

As, I have previously said this solicitor seems to be in conflict of interest in addition to be negligent : I did not shown him the two envelopes but now that he has seen these last he has changed his mind.

DRP

Amanda3 wrote: »

I have never said that the cheque was received either before or at the same time as the notice was deemed served : It is the opposite!



Cheque was provide in a mail that has been 'served'. The purpose of the 'date of service' is to know when the letter was really received.

As, I have previously said this solicitor seems to be in conflict of interest in addition to be negligent : I did not shown him the two envelopes but now that he has seen these last he has changed his mind.

So why not ask another solicitor who doesn't have a conflict of interest ?

Maybe next time actually show the solicitor all the evidence you have?

Amanda3

I have checked my notes (I keep due to harassment) and the first notice was received on 26 March 2013 and the letter containing the cheque was received on 27 March 2013.

I will go to my local royal mail office today in order to see if I can have a written proof of delivery of these two envelopes.

http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100319085911AAJdv00

rpc

If the solicitor has an undeclared conflict of interest, follow the complaints procedure. Be sure that this is the case though and not just a conspiracy theory.

If your solicitor has said that the notice is not valid, then why does the only post containing their advice explain why the notice is valid? Nobody can advise you if you don't keep a consistent story. If the postmarks and date of receipt are key to your argument then it boggles the mind that you hid this from the solicitor.

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. If you say one thing and the landlord says another with no proof either way then it will be judged on balance of probabilities.

There is no proof of delivery for first class, only proof of posting.

If your solicitor has really said that the notice is invalid (and your LL is still reading) then I would expect a new S21 though the post shortly.

molerat

Amanda3 wrote: »

I have checked my notes (I keep due to harassment) and the first notice was received on 26 March 2013 and the letter containing the cheque was received on 27 March 2013.

I will go to my local royal mail office today in order to see if I can have a written proof of delivery of these two envelopes.

http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100319085911AAJdv00

If they were not sent with proof of delivery there is no way you will get anything. Do you have tracking numbers ?

If the envelopes are stamped 25th then they are both deemed served 2 days after posting whatever date they actually arrived and IMHO going to court on that one would be a waste of time. The only way for it to be otherwise is to lie to the court and lose the envelope that the LL did not have proof of posting for.

Flashmanchop

Have you not moved yet?

What I cannot understand is why, if you have claimed you have previously claimed harrasment from your landlord, you still seem fit to want to stay?

Having been to court the judge will not enjoy heresay, and will be sttraight to the point - proof of delivery, correct dates used on S.21 and then will either agree or disagree.

You wont be able to moan on about random events and if it is a HMO or not, you are there to see if the S.21 is valid.

It cant be that bad that you are spending so much time and effort trying to stay!!

Shirley it cant be that bad....

Amanda3

rpc wrote: »

If your solicitor has said that the notice is not valid, then why does the only post containing their advice explain why the notice is valid? Nobody can advise you if you don't keep a consistent story. If the postmarks and date of receipt are key to your argument then it boggles the mind that you hid this from the solicitor.

That was a solicitor I have seen using my CAB : I have now ask them to close my file and to not work on my behalf since it seems there is a conflict of interest.

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. If you say one thing and the landlord says another with no proof either way then it will be judged on balance of probabilities.

There were two different envelopes stamped at the same dates but the notice one arrived a day earlier. I believe that one was sent on 25 March 2013 before 2 pm and the second the one later.

rpc wrote: »

There is no proof of delivery for first class, only proof of posting.

If your solicitor has really said that the notice is invalid (and your LL is still reading) then I would expect a new S21 though the post shortly.

The issue is that the landlord has given to the court as proof a 'certifcate of service' on 27 March 2013 : this date is not accurate and I the letter was really received on 26 March 2013 while the second one was received later.

Flashmanchop

I have read the thread - but why do you feel the solicitor has a conflict of interest.

If the LL has proof of postage (which you are stating he has given to the court) he must be pretty damn certain he has correct proof of postage/delivery.