LandLord just gave me notice.

[Deleted User]

Is it worth copying the notice and attaching it to a letter to the council explaining the situation? I know they said the help would come only once possession order is issued by the courts but I would like to get the ball rolling, I feel so powerless doing nothing…
Also I am reading stuff online and I am pretty sure the section 21 the LL issued is all wrong, the dates etc…Also deposit not protected as far as I know…

topdaddy_2

Deleted_User wrote: »

Is it worth copying the notice and attaching it to a letter to the council explaining the situation? I know they said the help would come only once possession order is issued by the courts but I would like to get the ball rolling, I feel so powerless doing nothing…
Also I am reading stuff online and I am pretty sure the section 21 the LL issued is all wrong, the dates etc…Also deposit not protected as far as I know…

Have you been issued a s21? Or just a letter giving notice?

[Deleted User]

To be honest, I have been reading a lot lately and I am confused about the S21 as apparently it doesn't need to be a form but just a letter. The LL sent me a letter (notice to quit premisses) , saying the he is giving me two months notice that my tenancy will cease on the 15/2/15 (he called me on the 15/12/14 but letter arrived today 18/12/14). Then he says that the notice is given in excess of the statutory period for notification required under House act 1988.
The letter is signed and dated 15/12/14.
Can't see the stamp properly but I think it was sent out on 16/12/14, 1st class.

booksurr

if you are sure your deposit is not protected then any letter the LL sends you whether a S21 or not or with/without correct dates is irrelevant since it would automatically be invalidated by the lack of deposit protection - you have been told this already, so why are you still going on about the (invalid) "notice" letter

G_M

booksurr wrote: »

if you are sure your deposit is not protected then any letter the LL sends you whether a S21 or not or with/without correct dates is irrelevant since it would automatically be invalidated by the lack of deposit protection - you have been told this already, so why are you still going on about the (invalid) "notice" letter

Indeed. Content & form of the 'letter' is irrelevant as non-protection of deposit invalidates it.

But for future reference, see

Example S21(1)(b) & S21(4)(a) Notices

ruggedtoast

Deleted_User wrote: »

To be honest, I have been reading a lot lately and I am confused about the S21 as apparently it doesn't need to be a form but just a letter. The LL sent me a letter (notice to quit premisses) , saying the he is giving me two months notice that my tenancy will cease on the 15/2/15 (he called me on the 15/12/14 but letter arrived today 18/12/14). Then he says that the notice is given in excess of the statutory period for notification required under House act 1988.
The letter is signed and dated 15/12/14.
Can't see the stamp properly but I think it was sent out on 16/12/14, 1st class.

You are going to be leaving sooner or later so it may be better to get him to issue notice correctly. If the s21 is invalid the court won't be able to issue an eviction notice.

SeduLOUs

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You are going to be leaving sooner or later so it may be better to get him to issue notice correctly. If the s21 is invalid the court won't be able to issue an eviction notice.

So isn't it in her interest for him to get it wrong? The longer he takes to issue notice properly, the longer she is safe in her current residence.

It isn't the tenant's responsibility to help the LL to do his paperwork correctly.

Again, we aren't 100% sure about the deposit. Without that being protected he cannot issue a valid notice at all. I'd approach him asking for details of where the deposit is secured to find out for certain if it is protected or not. If it isn't she can demand it al back immediately and possibly get 3x the deposit back from a court.

TBeckett100

On one hand landlords are slated for profiteering out of letting and on the other, the landlord is made to jump through hoops and expenses to get his rightful property back

Why not just let the landlord have his property back hassle free? It isn't his fault you can't afford to move, you have a child you cannot support self sufficiently or run your own life without help from the state

stator

TBeckett100 wrote: »

On one hand landlords are slated for profiteering out of letting and on the other, the landlord is made to jump through hoops and expenses to get his rightful property back

He sold the right to live in it for variable period of time, knowing that he wouldn't be able to live in it himself. He's taken the money, now if he wants the house back he has to follow the law, which he knew about when he started. I don't see the problem. It's not hard to find out the law on this matter.

Pixie5740

TBeckett100 wrote: »

On one hand landlords are slated for profiteering out of letting and on the other, the landlord is made to jump through hoops and expenses to get his rightful property back

Why not just let the landlord have his property back hassle free? It isn't his fault you can't afford to move, you have a child you cannot support self sufficiently or run your own life without help from the state

Why can't the LL issue a Section 21 properly and give the correct notice? It's not the OP's fault that this LL didn't do his homework properly before becoming a LL. It is not the OP's fault that the LL can't issue a Section 21 correctly. Nor is it the OP's fault that the LL didn't protect the deposit.

Besides its the T's property during a tenancy not the LL's.