Cannot commit to new 6 month term - LL reluctant to accept statutory periodic

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

S21 has to be unequivocal. The offer of a further fixed term has made it very equivocal and, as a result, invalid.

I'm afraid not.

jjlandlord

There is a difference between telling a tenant that he can stay then still trying to action a s.21 notice and telling him that you will be prepared to let him stay if he enters into a new tenancy (with whatever new terms).

Only the former is equivocal.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

I'm afraid not.

I'm afraid so. A LL cannot say "I'm going to evict you" and "Do you want a new tenancy". Those 2 statements are incompatible. The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

stator

Try Shelter for help:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/

Or seek professional legal advice

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm afraid so. A LL cannot say "I'm going to evict you" and "Do you want a new tenancy". Those 2 statements are incompatible. The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

Can you substantiate this claim?

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm afraid so. A LL cannot say "I'm going to evict you" and "Do you want a new tenancy". Those 2 statements are incompatible. The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

See my previous post.

The landlord says "I will evict unless you agree to a new tenancy". Very different from what you wrote.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

See my previous post.

The landlord says "I will evict unless you agree to a new tenancy". Very different from what you wrote.

The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

No, as previously said.

franklee

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The offer of a new tenancy would invalidate the notice served.

I think so too. Here's a link to a solicitor's blog expert in this area, also see the comments where it's discussed a little:

http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2010/08/23/after-a-section-21-notice-expires/

"Therefore agents should not be overly focused on the section 21 notice and tenants staying on after it has expired and more on making sure they have not offered a new tenancy which might override the notice."

jjlandlord

"might override the notice"... clear as muddy water.

As always one must read everything to try to understand what is meant.
In the same thread Painsmith also commented:

"A landlord that says "I will not enforce on the section 21 until x date” can argue that rather than cancelling the notice he is affirming it but simply stating he will not use his right to enforce until a later date. If the landlord made representations that he was creating a new lease, rather than letting you remain in on the terms of the old one and/or if something happened to suggest a new lease ( e.g. you agreed to pay a higher rent ), then a new s21 notice might be prudent. You should however seek independent legal advice."

That's not quite what you guy suggest by oversimplification, is it?

Therefore, I maintain what I wrote: conducting negotiations for a new lease does not invalidate the notice. But telling the tenant that he can stay might.