Invalid Section 21?

franklee

teeni wrote: »

the relevant issue here appears to be the date the prescribed information was served, are you sure, can you prove it was served more than 30 days after you paid the deposit. If so you would have a good defence. However if you haven't got evidence of that a defence is unlikely to be successful, ideal evidence would be the envelope it arrived in if the date stamp is clear or a letter from the dps confirming the date issued. Remember if you defend it unsuccessfully you will be liable for not just your costs but also theirs which can amount to a huge amount of money if you haven't got the protection of a legal aid certificate.

Nope. The prescribed information can be served later than the 30 days, doesn't affect the S21 so long as the PI was served before the S21. However there may still be the 1-3x deposit penalty depending on the details of the OP's situation but that's not anything the OP has asked about. (It may be the OP can put in a counter claim due to the late service but that's a separate issue to S21 validity).

If the OP's defence fails he'll likely have to pay the LL's court fee and a small amount towards solicitor's costs, the amount the LL is claiming for this should be on the LL's possession claim that the OP has already received from the county court. It should be fairly easy for the OP to ascertain if there is a valid fault in the LL's paperwork before putting a defence in. We do not know why he wants a delay but presumably he can weigh up if the potential cost makes it worth it to him or not.

I put in a defence due to PI failure (S21 served as LL wished to sell) as I needed a couple more months to leave as I was mid house purchase. The LL withdrew his claim so it didn't cost me anything but then I did have a valid PI deficiency defence.

jjlandlord

teeni wrote: »

rubbish the prescribed information must be served within 30 days , failure to comply with the regulations leaves the landlord at risk of sanctions, namely the inability to rely upon a s21 notice to obtain a possession order .

Well, as it happens, it does not matter when the prescribed information were given as long as it was before the s.21 notice was served.

'rubbish' you said... Hmm you mean like suggesting that OP should put in an invalid defence that would only result in more costs to him?

franklee

I'm guessing the deposit was protected in time even though the prescribed information missed the 30 days but worth the OP checking his dates against these:

http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/deposit-protection-from-2015.shtml

http://www.saifulislam.co.uk/index.php/blog/entry/tenancy-deposits-and-the-deregulation-act-2015

VirtualMark

I've also noticed that the deposit protection form(included with the court papers) is only signed by her, yet says I needed to sign it. And the address she has for me is incorrect, as it's only a next of kin contact address I gave her. Will this be a problem for her?

VirtualMark

Missko wrote: »

OP, folk like you give tenants a bad name! Squatting after you've been politely asked to leave and causing your LL expense on purpose!

Dumbest comment ever. You know nothing of my situation, and I've only provided an outline of the problems she's caused.

The council have been around and found several problems with this place, so I was right to complain to her.

And it's a retaliatory eviction, which has just been made illegal in the UK. Unfortunately it only covers new tenancies, so I just missed the date.

People like you should either think before speaking, or just remain silent.

VirtualMark

Missko wrote: »

Virtual Mark - do you pay the heating bill? Are you the only person at home during the day?

Would you be impressed with the Court if they threw out your "defence" to the eviction because YOU made a typo?

I'd love to hear your LL's side of things.

The heating is included in the rent, so yet I do pay for it.

No, other people are sometimes here in the day, nobody works 7 days a week. Anyhow, I don't see what point you're trying to make? It's illegal to control the heating, and the council told her outright that they would prosecute her if she continues to lock the boiler away.

And I don't care if the court throws out her case for a typo. I'll take any reason that I can get, I don't want to lose my home and shouldn't be forced out because someone decided to be a cow to me.

silvercar

And I don't care if the court throws out her case for a typo. I'll take any reason that I can get, I don't want to lose my home and shouldn't be forced out because someone decided to be a cow to me.

The bottom line is that eventually the landlord will get the paperwork right, if not this time then the time after or the time after that.

So you will need to look for a new home.

How much energy, emotion and expense you want to devote to staying in your current home as against searching for a new home is down to you.

The best strategy may be to find your next home and then tell your landlady that you will be prepared to move out on xx date and that would avoid court costs etc

Guest101

Missko wrote: »

OP, folk like you give tenants a bad name! Squatting after you've been politely asked to leave and causing your LL expense on purpose!

Think you might need a refresher course on squatting... Actually a new career might be simpler

OP you are not squatting

Guest101

VirtualMark wrote: »

Dumbest comment ever. You know nothing of my situation, and I've only provided an outline of the problems she's caused.

The council have been around and found several problems with this place, so I was right to complain to her.

And it's a retaliatory eviction, which has just been made illegal in the UK. Unfortunately it only covers new tenancies, so I just missed the date.

People like you should either think before speaking, or just remain silent.

Retaliatory eviction is not illegal in the uk.

VirtualMark

Guest101 wrote: »

Retaliatory eviction is not illegal in the uk.

The deregulation bill was passed this year, and comes into effect in October(it won't let me post a link, but Google it), and it bans retaliatory evictions.