What happens at the end of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy please?

olly300

The simplest advice to give to peachespeaches is:
1. Read up on your rights https://www.shelter.org.uk and contact them if you have any problems.
2. Follow up any telephone calls to the estate agent about anything (repairs, tenancy agreement) in written correspondence and copy any letters to the landlord. Use recorded delivery for both letters. Keep copies until you have got your deposit back or until you think you don't need them any more.
3. While landlords can be difficult most trouble for both parties is actually caused by letting/estate agents not passing messages on within 48 hours.

thesaint

franklee wrote: »

I am asking the opinion of any landlords here, except for the jokers amongst us.


silvercar indicated they do but there are plenty of other threads where this has been discussed before. I've pulled out a few examples:<snip>
.

So you should have said silvercar and not addressed landlords as a collective.

peachespeaches

Im now one terrified tenant.

Guy_Montag

peachespeaches wrote: »

Im now one terrified tenant.

Don't worry it's not that bad - just be careful. keep your wits about you & don't rush into anything.

You'll be fine & if you're not you know where to come :money:

franklee

thesaint wrote: »

So you should have said silvercar and not addressed landlords as a collective.

Why? If I want to ask "the collective" their views then I will, who on earth are you to say I can't? I am asking landlords here, particularly those that operate the SoD, if they see some hypocrisy in this approach to serving S21s. Besides I know silvercar is a landlord but I haven't noticed her say if she operates the Sword of Damocles. What she DID say is "I think MOST agents/landlords serve what is known as a section 21 notice after the tenancy has started.", so SHE IS saying she thinks MOST landlords do operate the Sword of Damocles and I agree from reading this forum many here do. It's also endemic on landlordzone and singingpig, although it does have it's critics on those forums too.

The ones that DO operate the Sword of Damocles and they or their tenants post here, just taken from those three threads alone which are the tip of the iceberg, are Tassotti, clutton. BobProperty, RosySparkle (agent), littlesaint's landlord, Kuztardd's landlord, Tiglet's agent, babe ruth, MJMum, oligopoly's landlord, jazzholiday. Swishter says "as A LOT of agencies serve notice when you sign the contract, if this was done it will be with your original tenancy agreement". Those that don't, well the only landlord I recall speaking out against it here is GorgeousGeorge!

thesaint

Don't burst a blood vessel. :cool:

I did not say you can't address landlords as a collective.

The one thing that happens when you lump everyone in a group is that you imply that that group are all the same. If you stated that you were questioning those operating the S.O.D, and asked the views of those that don't it would make more sense in my opinion.

I would not have a paragraph starting "Don't all you tenants" if I were to address bad practices of some.

This from the first thread you supplied a link to:

thesaint wrote: »

The best way to proceed in your case(and most others) is to issue an S21 when you want your property back. It can get very confusing as i'm sure you are aware.

Seems like you have selective reading skills that favour your point?

so SHE IS saying she thinks MOST landlords do operate the Sword of Damocles and I agree from reading this forum many here do.

Swishter says "as A LOT of agencies serve notice when you sign the contract

Anecdotal evidence is poor proof of stating such practice is rife.

The Joker.:D

franklee

thesaint wrote: »

I would not have a paragraph starting "Don't all you tenants" if I were to address bad practices of some.

Many, I was meaning to address the bad practices of many.

thesaint wrote: »

This from the first thread you supplied a link to:

thesaint wrote: »

The best way to proceed in your case(and most others) is to issue an S21 when you want your property back. It can get very confusing as i'm sure you are aware.

thesaint wrote: »

Seems like you have selective reading skills that favour your point?

You wrote that earlier in the thread, you originally didn't fully understand the SoD and said so, in fact I was one of the posters who took the time to explain it to you, BobProperty was one of the others.

And you definitely seemed in favour by the end:

thesaint wrote: »

BobProperty, I can now see why it is preferable to issue the S21 at the start of the tenancy, but I believe that you were misleading us with your original answer.

So it isn't my selective reading but your selective memory.

So which is it, are you now for or against the Sword of Damocles?

thesaint

franklee wrote: »

Many, I was meaning to address the bad practices of many.
Thank you. I do not know what constitutes 'Many', but we'll never know.

You wrote that earlier in the thread, you originally didn't fully understand the SoD and said so, in fact I was one of the posters who took the time to explain it to you, BobProperty was one of the others.
I didn't make any such statement, is that your eyesight reading something that wasn't there?
I told the OP to issue the S21 when he/she wanted the property back, this is not the 'Sword of Damoclese'.
The confusion I referred to was to the issuing at the start and the tenant (and landlord) not knowing if they are being evicted.

And you definitely seemed in favour by the end:
I said that I would consider it in individual circumstances, and clarified this by stating that I would explain what it was to a tenant. Did you eyesight miss that, or didn't it fit in with the point you are making?

So it isn't my selective reading but your selective memory.
Erm, not so sure.

So which is it, are you now for or against the Sword of Damocles?
Please re-read the whole thread, I make my thoughts about it quite clear.

The Joker

franklee

thesaint wrote: »

I said that I would consider it in individual circumstances, and clarified this by stating that I would explain what it was to a tenant. Did you eyesight miss that, or didn't it fit in with the point you are making?

That's in the post I posted a quote of above, here it is again with the other bit you just mentioned included too:

thesaint wrote: »

BobProperty, I can now see why it is preferable to issue the S21 at the start of the tenancy, but I believe that you were misleading us with your original answer.

As it transpires, it is simply so that you can negate the spirit of giving two months notice.

...

If I had some tenants that I were concerned about, I would now consider using your route, but I would explain the real reason what I was doing, and why I was doing it. I would then revoke it after 12/18 months if I was happy with them.

The flaw here is you can't in any way explain to the tenants that it's OK with you if they ignore the S21 notice without invalidating the notice. That's why any use of the SoD is deplorable, it relies on duping the tenants into ignoring the S21 notice so they don't leave. This is often done with worthless platitudes like they can stay on "if all goes well" or somesuch. To remain valid a S21 MUST be unequivocal and without reservation. What's more if there is a possession hearing there is every chance you would have to lie in court by denying what you'd said to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. But if you have an explanation without these flaws please elaborate, I'm sure many landlords would be eager to hear it!

thesaint wrote: »

Please re-read the whole thread, I make my thoughts about it quite clear.

I repeat the post you used before to indicate you are against the SoD is an earlier one before Bob, myself and others spent loads of time on that thread answering your many SoD questions. After which your LATER post on that thread, quoted above, reads like you had changed your mind in favour of the SoD and that you may even start using it selectively.

I don't think it's right or necessary to trick tenants out of their notice under any circumstances. If anything your stance is worse than those who issue the SoD to all tenants on day 1 as at least they've got the (lame) excuse the tenant may turn out REALLY BAD while really believing that's not likely happen and they'll not action the notice and the tenant still has the protection of the fixed term to make other arrangements should they object. You would NOW consider issuing it to tenants you already know, have concerns about but yet may or may not want to keep, putting the the tenant in a very precarious position as there may be little of the fixed term left or they may by then be on a periodic tenancy. You propose to leave them in this state of uncertainty for an inhuman 12/18 months. Yet these would not be BAD tenants, if they were BAD tenants you'd proceed with the eviction and not need the SoD.

It is really any wonder I didn't put you in the "against the SoD" list!

thesaint

franklee wrote: »

<snip>
I repeat the post you used before to indicate you are against the SoD is an earlier one before Bob, myself and others spent loads of time on that thread answering your many SoD questions. After which your LATER post on that thread, quoted above, reads like you had changed your mind in favour of the SoD and that you may even start using it selectively.
<snip>
It is really any wonder I didn't put you in the "against the SoD" list!

franklee,
Are you sure that you have re-read the whole thread, earlier you claimed that I said that I didn't understand the S.O.D, this turned out to be an untruth, now you claim that I asked many questions about the S.O.D. This is also untrue.

There was another member called 'littlesaint' that had many questions that needed answering.

I did ask (2 questions?) about the proposed new legislation, but this was at the end of the thread.

Please put me on your list, that's what I need to complete my life.

The joker:D