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

Amanda3

molerat wrote: »

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.

In fact, the cheque envelope is partially destroyed and I have checked it again with my note : it seems it was a letter from landlord and a letter from my solicitor I have received on 27th March 2013.

rpc

Amanda3 wrote: »

Since they are lying, it maybe the best option.

Why are they lying?

If a letter is posted first class on the 25th March, it is served on 27th March regardless what day it actually arrived. This is part of the civil procedure rules.

It could arrive on the 26th or 28th and the date of service would still be the 27th.

Amanda3

rpc wrote: »

Why are they lying?

If a letter is posted first class on the 25th March, it is served on 27th March regardless what day it actually arrived. This is part of the civil procedure rules.

It could arrive on the 26th or 28th and the date of service would still be the 27th.

I am talking about the whole. Landlord is dishonest since has stolen me £800 (and in addition assaulted me using his daughter when I was claiming for the refund : he lied to the police,etc.). Several times, himself he tried to intimidate me but presently he is in fear of the police due to my complaint. These are the reason why I am trying to find directly a property that I will not share (in order to avoid the repetition this kind of issues).

dodger1

Flashmanchop wrote: »

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

Shirley it cant be that bad....

Is Shirley a friend of OP

Flashmanchop

Amanda3 wrote: »

Ps : In addition landlord said in the defence form that the property is not an HMO while it is (even if licence is not required).

It is not then a HMO.

G_M

Amanda3 wrote: »

I better understand the cheque issue.

The certificate of service is exactly a document like at http://wbus.westlaw.co.uk/forms/pdf/cpf09478.pdf

They have filled it as described below:

On what day did you serve? 25/03/2013
The date of service is 27/03/2013

Then this is correct. As has been explained by many posters, if the letter was posted 1st class (25th) then it is deemed served 2 business days later (27th).

This applies to both letters. If, in fact, one of them happened to come through the letterbox a day earlier that is irrelevant.

So both letters were served on 27th.

There is still uncertainty about whether serving them on same day invalidates the S21, but see the comments by franklee above.

Amanda3

Flashmanchop wrote: »

It is not then a HMO.

It is a House with Multiple Occupation for which a licence may not be required.I will precise this last in the form.

Amanda3

G_M wrote: »

Then this is correct. As has been explained by many posters, if the letter was posted 1st class (25th) then it is deemed served 2 business days later (27th).

This applies to both letters. If, in fact, one of them happened to come through the letterbox a day earlier that is irrelevant.

So both letters were served on 27th.

There is still uncertainty about whether serving them on same day invalidates the S21, but see the comments by franklee above.

Claimant has provided a certificate for section 21. There's no proof that the cheque was served on 27 march 2013 and I won't help them.

HarryBarry

Amanda - what outcome do you actually want here? What date would you be happy to move out?

No matter how !!!! the landlord has been in following the rules, by now you have had plenty of notice that he wants you gone, put all of this time you are wasting into finding somewhere else (even if it is just lodging for a few weeks until you can get your ideal set up). Remember if he had got it all right, you'd have been gone ages ago, so what would you have done then?

Mr Landlord (if you really are reading) - is it really worth all of this hassle and court costs? It's clear you don't like each other, but just agree a date between yourselves as to when she will move out and forget it (assuming rent is being paid). You messed up with the deposit so it would be better to just let her have her way if she really is going to continue kicking up a fuss.

Flashmanchop

Amanda3 wrote: »

It is a House with Multiple Occupation for which a licence may not be required.I will precise this last in the form.

So are you confirming that you have checked with your Local Authoity who have confirmed that it is a HMO but it does not need a license to be a HMO.

OR

are you saying it is a HMO but the landlord hasnt licensed the property.

If the former, what element does this add to your arguement excatly?

Why dont you just move out? - I am being serious, you clearly have it in for the poor landlord, and hate living in his slum, so why not just move?