I think my Section 21 is illegal.

franklee

GDB2222 wrote: »

So, do you approve of the blackmail, or not?

Just to make this clear, as apparently I'm a grumpy, nasty landlord, I'm objecting to the dual standards. The tenant doesn't bother with following the tenancy agreement, but pounces on a trivial mistake in the S21 notice as a means of blackmailing her landlord. Furthermore, he's expected to give her a nice reference 'as it's his fault'. Sheesh, and then she says that he's a bad landlord!

The nearest thing to blackmail I can see on this thread is this:

GDB2222 wrote: »

Either you move out more or less in line with the (invalid) S21, or you don't get a good reference.

If the landlord is half decent the reference should not be affected by a tenant challenging an invalid S21. If the LL really wants the tenant to leave early (where the tenant is legally entitled to remain) then he can offer assistance to make that happen. Otherwise he can follow due process like everyone else.

ruggedtoast

All I see here is some spiv reneging on a gentleman's agreement and kicking a perfectly decent person out of their home to make a fast buck.

And surprise surprise they can't even get the paperwork to comply with a, rather simple, statutory law right.

But what does that matter eh, laws are just for tenants to worry about, not the vaunted landlords. How dare you want what meagre rights the regulations afford you tenant, tug thy forelock and beg for your reference like a good non homeowner to make amends for your terrible crime of daring to want a pet in your own home.

Everything that is venal, corrupt and wrong with the UK's miserable private rental industry is contained within this thread. Many of the chancers who run it are not fit nor worthy to provide homes for decent people. All they care about is lining their pockets with greed.

Robsia

GDB2222 wrote: »

The tenant doesn't bother with following the tenancy agreement...

Why do you say this?

mrginge

Sympathy for the tenant is one thing, but from the landlords point of view...

Hi.

I am a landlord and my tenant rang me to look at some repairs. I went round and saw that they had firstly got a dog which i was not informed about and secondly caused additional damage to other areas of the house.
If they had asked me about the dog i would probably have just asked for an extra deposit, but because they didn't and i can see that they are not looking after the house i have decided to sell up.
I cannot afford to subsidise bad tenants so i have issued an s.21, however due to an admin error the s.21 is actually invalid. The tenant is now playing games and asking me to pay them off to get them out. I am concerned that they will cause extra damage which i cannot afford to repair.
I know i have to reissue the s.21 but do i have any other grounds to remove them under an s.8

Thanks,

Robsia's landlord.

ruggedtoast

mrginge wrote: »

Sympathy for the tenant is one thing, but from the landlords point of view...

Balderdash. The landlord wants to sell the property and the tenant clearly communicated the presence of the dog to the landlord's agent. Its not her fault if both these entities are too incompetent to communicate between one another, let alone issue an S21 which actually complies with the law.

The schyster has done no repairs on the property and is abusive and threatening. To hell with them and their prejudice about dogs.

I hope the OP gets a flotilla of dogs, a vertiable armada of hounds, and the next time this so called land 'lord' and his cronies come calling they are sent packing under the snapping jaws of pomeranians.

They can then find out the hard way through the courts, that they have done everything wrong.

Herbalus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Balderdash. The landlord wants to sell the property and the tenant clearly communicated the presence of the dog to the landlord's agent. Its not her fault if both these entities are too incompetent to communicate between one another, let alone issue an S21 which actually complies with the law.

The schyster has done no repairs on the property and is abusive and threatening. To hell with them and their prejudice about dogs.

I hope the OP gets a flotilla of dogs, a vertiable armada of hounds, and the next time this so called land 'lord' and his cronies come calling they are sent packing under the snapping jaws of pomeranians.

They can then find out the hard way through the courts, that they have done everything wrong.

Top marks for invention, wit and quality of writing. I would point out however that Pomeranians, while reasonably defensive, are not the type of dog to send anyone packing. Anyone who doesn't know them should google them. Cutest dogs in the world

GDB2222

There's legislation to protect tenants from harassment and from eviction without the correct notices etc. I am all in favour of that.

Then there are tenants who play this for all they are worth. Robsia says that she isn't really looking for somewhere else to move in the hope of extracting a payment from the LL. It's not a particularly moral stance, is it?

And the landlord is supposed to be a decent chap, pay up and give a good reference?

And the tenant told the agent she was thinking about getting a puppy, but did not get agreement from the landlord.

ruggedtoast

Herbalus wrote: »

Top marks for invention, wit and quality of writing. I would point out however that Pomeranians, while reasonably defensive, are not the type of dog to send anyone packing. Anyone who doesn't know them should google them. Cutest dogs in the world

The pomeranians are only the fist phalanx.

They will be followed by wave after wave of miniature schnausers, dachsunds and a cohort of beagle triarii. No gelled haired wheeler dealer will dare to go within a country mile of that lot.

mrginge

The point that you are failing to grasp is that the one third of the story you have read on here may be completely different to the version of events that the LL and LA were to give.

Those of us with some level of intelligence and perspective can see that things may not be as cut and dried, and as such can provide an objective opinion without simply resorting to LL bashing.

It may well be the case that the LL is an utter div who has done nothing to fulfil their obligations, however it may also be the case that OP has antagonised and disrupted the LL and LA to the point that they cant wait to get shut of them.

Either way, in almost all cases it is far better to come to a reasonable negotiated exit that benefits all parties than simply take the childish approach of confrontation for the sake of it, as this will inevitably lead to further problems for the OP.

Hopefully the OP has some form of common sense and can see this.

undetterred

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Balderdash. The landlord wants to sell the property and the tenant clearly communicated the presence of the dog to the landlord's agent. Its not her fault if both these entities are too incompetent to communicate between one another, let alone issue an S21 which actually complies with the law.

The schyster has done no repairs on the property and is abusive and threatening. To hell with them and their prejudice about dogs.

I hope the OP gets a flotilla of dogs, a vertiable armada of hounds, and the next time this so called land 'lord' and his cronies come calling they are sent packing under the snapping jaws of pomeranians.

They can then find out the hard way through the courts, that they have done everything wrong.

What a pr1ck.