Recent Court of Appeal case - S21 validity

G_M

jjlandlord wrote: »

And so, that 'may' in s.21(2) becomes priceless.

and has been misinterpreted by numerous legal experts for years!

(at least until this case goes to the Supreme Court and gets reversed......)

G_M

Here's an interesting question / anomaly:

Re Notice given by the tenant: since a tenant's required notice period is not governed by S21 at all, but by Laine and Mitchell v Cadwallader & Cadwallader (2001), I assume the tenant still has to align their notice with their Tenancy Periods (as has always been understood).

It is just Notice by the landlord that is affected by this judgement.......

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

(sorry - you have to laugh at the law sometimes!)

jjlandlord

Notices to quit are well defined, so notices by tenants are not the anomaly. It is really the s.21 mess that is one, indeed.
They should admit it and re-write from scratch in clear, simple terms without special cases.

FR_262

I couldn't find my tenant's AST (it's around somewhere....) and he's in arrears. I issued a s21 with over 2 months' notice.

I was a bit (lot) concerned that I couldn't find the TA but hoped that a S21 would shake him up a bit and get him to pay the rent. It didn't. Grrrr

From reading above, is my S21 valid?

(Berlingogirl)

G_M

FR_262 wrote: »

I couldn't find my tenant's AST (it's around somewhere....) and he's in arrears. I issued a s21 with over 2 months' notice.

I was a bit (lot) concerned that I couldn't find the TA but hoped that a S21 would shake him up a bit and get him to pay the rent. It didn't. Grrrr

From reading above, is my S21 valid?

(Berlingogirl)

How can we possibly tell from the minimal information provided?

Can I suggest you start your own thread, providing full details, but linking to this on if relevant, as this thread is about the (apparent) change in the law rather than individual cases?

princeofpounds

So... What about a situation where a LL now issues a notice to expire on day 2 of a rental period? If this is now possible, the tenant is i think legally responsible for paying the whole period's rent (as this is not normally a divisible sum). But they can only get 2 days's use if they comply with the notice.

Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but I suppose the advice would have to be stay around until the end of the period?

gordonbennet

princeofpounds wrote: »

What about a situation where a LL now issues a notice to expire on day 2 of a rental period? If this is now possible, the tenant is i think legally responsible for paying the whole period's rent (as this is not normally a divisible sum). But they can only get 2 days's use if they comply with the notice.

Remember the expiry of the s21 doesn't give the LL possession, only the right to now apply to the court for possession.

Practically speaking I would think it reasonable for the landlord to have a discussion with the tenant and either agree for them to stay until the end of the tenancy period, or to give a pro-rata refund.

G_M

princeofpounds wrote: »

So... What about a situation where a LL now issues a notice to expire on day 2 of a[STRIKE] rental[/STRIKE]tenancy period? If this is now possible, the tenant is i think legally responsible for paying the whole period's rent (as this is not normally a divisible sum). But they can only get 2 days's use if they comply with the notice.

Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but I suppose the advice would have to be stay around until the end of the period?

Do you have precedence for the non-divisible assertion?

Not saying you're wrong- I don't know.

But I can't see the courts allowing a LL to evict AND retain overpaid rent.

Trouble is this ruling has changed a process which has been followed by lower courts for years, has thrown up anomalies, and only further tests in the Court of Appeal can resolve those anomalies.

Or, as jjlandlord says, re-drafting of the Statute.

jjlandlord

A s.21(1) notice served during a fixed term tenancy could already expire at anytime during a tenancy period.
But in any case, a s.21 notice has no effect on the tenancy whatsoever so there is nothing (and there never was) anything a tenant could do to 'comply' apart from (a) telling the landlord that he would accept to surrender the property on an agreed date, and pay rent accordingly, or (b) serving his own notice to quit.

Re. rent, yes it is not apportionable if paid in advance, so landlord would not be obliged to refund, but equally if tenant didn't pay for whole period a court would not hold him liable for 'rent' after the tenancy had ended (I would hope at least).

princeofpounds

Remember the expiry of the s21 doesn't give the LL possession, only the right to now apply to the court for possession.

Yes, of course. That is why I said that the tenants must consider staying until the period end anyway.

But the problem is that landlords generally assume that tenants will be leaving immediately on expiry of the notice. Not smart, educated landlords perhaps, but that's a minority. Notice = eviction has become an assumed convention.

So plenty of opportunity for bad blood to arise and problems with references.