Section 21 issues two days after tenancy begins

ega05th

It's not been issued yet, just was told that the landlady will issue it and she said we'd have to move out after 2 months.

But our contract is for a year so looks like this wouldn't affect us until the end of our fixed tenancy term.

Pixie5740

The LL said you'd have to move out after 2 months? What a clown. I suppose that explains why she ever let the LA have control over the deposit in the first place.

thesaint

ega05th wrote: »

It's not been issued yet, just was told that the landlady will issue it and she said we'd have to move out after 2 months.

But our contract is for a year so looks like this wouldn't affect us until the end of our fixed tenancy term.

Okay, I understand now.

I will say that your landlady is in the wrong here. I know most forums do all they can to knock letting agents, but they are taking the correct steps.

SerialRenter

It is correct to say a section 21 notice when the deposit has not been protected would be invalid. It is also correct to say that if it is registered within the 30 days then it is valid.

Let's not be so pedantic thesaint, The OP implied the Landland may not end up protecting the deposit correctly.

once she signs a document regarding protecting it - which she is reluctant to do.

G_M

* if the deposit is/was not protected within 30 days of paying it (irrespective whether to LL or agent), AND 'Prescribed Information issued to tenant, S21 Notice is invalid

* S21 cannot expire (ie be used in court for possession);
a) within 1st 6 months (in every case)
b) before the fixed term ends (ie 12 months for you) unless there is a 'Break Clause' in the tenancy agreement

* threats of illegal eviction (from LL or agent) are harrassment (Protection from Eviction Act 1977)

thesaint

SerialRenter wrote: »

It is correct to say a section 21 notice when the deposit has not been protected would be invalid. It is also correct to say that if it is registered within the 30 days then it is valid.

Please be honest in your replies.

You clearly stated that if the Sec 21 is yet to be protected, it would be invalidated.

You then said if they protected it, they then would be able to issue a valid Sec 21.

SerialRenter wrote: »

Let's not be so pedantic thesaint, The OP implied the Landland may not end up protecting the deposit correctly.

So? What has that to do with your incorrect statement?