We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Section 21 Notice and wanting to buy

1…67891012»

Comments

  • spooky69
    spooky69 Posts: 89 Forumite
    spooky69 wrote: »
    Super - thanks for a useful bit of information. I'll go and have a look.

    Good, so that takes it back to my initial understanding of at least one times the deposit and no more than three times the deposit.

    Thanks for the information.
  • spooky69
    spooky69 Posts: 89 Forumite
    antrobus wrote: »
    That's because legislation.gov have yet to apply the changes to the Housing Act 2014 bought in by the Localism Act 2011.

    So whilst, for example s214(4) of the HA 2014 does indeed say;

    The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

    s184(9) of the LA 2011 says for “equal to” substitute “not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than”.

    Got to click on ALL of those little amendments! The fact that they have not yet been applied does not of course mean that the changes are not yet valid. Correct me if I am wrong.
  • jjlandlord
    jjlandlord Posts: 5,099 Forumite
    spooky69 wrote: »
    Could you provide your source, as this contradicts what is stated in the legislation.

    It does not.
    I see some good soul has already helped you on that... Good on them.
  • spooky69
    spooky69 Posts: 89 Forumite
    jjlandlord wrote: »
    It does not.
    I see some good soul has already helped you on that... Good on them.

    Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed... ;)
  • jjlandlord
    jjlandlord Posts: 5,099 Forumite
    spooky69 wrote: »
    Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed... ;)

    No, but then I read your comments...
  • spooky69
    spooky69 Posts: 89 Forumite
    jjlandlord wrote: »
    Gold digging does not come with guarantees.

    Worth adding that bullying, harrassing and lying to tenants does not come with any guarantees either.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture