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

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

"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.

Well you must have missed my post #11 on the previous page where I already explained the uncertainty the tenant would be facing should they pursue this argument in court. Or my post #8 where I put froward other alternatives the OP can pursue ahead of using the renewal voiding the S21 issue.

However worth noting the LL/agent would also have uncertainty so they may wish to serve a fresh section 21 to put their own position beyond doubt before spending the court fees if the tenant highlights the issue now. After all it's for the LL to prove his case and judges don't take evicting good tenants lightly especially as the OP has the offer of a new tenancy and the slightly bullying email in writing. I don't think the agent denying the periodic tenancy exists will go down well. Even getting the thing listed for a hearing will give the tenant heaps of time to move, it's if the fees get awarded against the tenant that are the bigger pain as it's quite expensive nowadays.

Still it's good you agree telling the tenant that he can stay might void the S21 so that's progress in the right direction

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

After all it's for the LL to prove his case and judges don't take evicting good tenants lightly especially as the OP has the offer of a new tenancy and the slightly bullying email in writing. I don't think the agent denying the periodic tenancy exists will go down well.

This is all irrelevant... I hope you realise it.

If anything, the agent's reply make the situation unequivocal if that was the alleged issue with the notice.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

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

In general terms, without further details, what more would you expect?

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

How can conducting negotiations for a new lease start from any other point than that the tenant can stay?

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

How can conducting negotiations for a new lease start from any other point than that the tenant can stay?

Last time:
The tenant cannot stay. The tenant can stay if he enters into a new tenancy.

English and logic.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

Last time:
The tenant cannot stay. The tenant can stay if he enters into a new tenancy.

English and logic.

The tenant cannot stay. The tenant can stay.

I would say that was neither English or logic.

G_M

Jimmcwibb wrote: »

....

Really, the underlying thing is that we want to stay, we want to pay the LL rent, we have never been a problem, we're just unsure about how much longer we can stay. We could stay for at LEAST another 3 months, possibly 6, and possibly even more than that.

What is the best way forward?

Thanks,
Alex

You need to do some hard thinking about what you want.

The impression given is that this is not a bluff. Whether the existing S21 is valid or not merely affects the timescales, but if you dig your heels in I suspect the agent/LL will take repossession action.

So at some point you will be leaving.

If all you want is a month or two's leeway, you could
* do nothing, not respond, wait, and then if/when a court hearing comes up, challange the S21
* take delaying tactics, respond suggesting a 6 month contract with 3 month Break Clause. If/when that's declined, suggest a contractual Periodic with a 1 month notice period.
Every email exchange buys an extra..... week?

If you want to stay long term, then doing so based on a relationship this sour is perhaps not advisable. Better to compromise.

So: what are your plans?

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The tenant cannot stay. The tenant can stay.

I would say that was neither English or logic.

I'm sorry, I should have started from the beginning.
Please see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/if

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is all irrelevant... I hope you realise it.

If anything, the agent's reply make the situation unequivocal if that was the alleged issue with the notice.

Err the agent writes "Legally, your tenancy expired on 11 June 2015 and you remain in the property on an authorised basis, not a periodic."

Obviously the OP clearly does still have a tenancy. However the agent says the OP remains on an authorised basis. Now there was no need to authorise the tenant remaining as in the absence of any other new tenancy a statutory periodic tenancy would have happened automatically. In the OP's case clearly the LL/agent have authorised the tenant can remain thus leaving the OP to argue this created a new tenancy. If the agent hadn't denied the statutory periodic tenancy they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot as there would be been no talk of authorisation to remain. As it is the OP could argue it's a new contractual periodic tenancy by authorisation of the agent and thus a new tenancy authorised after the S21 was served.

That's even before we get to argue about the effect of the agent offering the OP a new fixed term.

Guest101

JJ is correct.

I will evict, unless you sign a new fixed term. Makes perfect sense.

But the agent saying they are authorised doesn't make sense. Silly agents. Confusing the situation.

The real point is, the agents are writing this, not the LL. And that could be important.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm sorry, I should have started from the beginning.
Please see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/if

Please, allow me.

The tenant cannot stay: That is the purpose and meaning of a S21 notice. It's a clear and unequivocal indication of the landlords intent to take the actions required to bring the tenancy to an end. It's not a negotiating point.

The tenant can stay if... : That is the start of a negotiation opened from the standpoint that the tenant remains. Any tenancy terms being negotiated will only be satisfied if the tenant does NOT leave.

Those 2 positions are clearly completely incompatible. Either the LL wants the tenant to leave, or they want the tenant to stay. They cannot ask for both. As the last position given was that the landlord wants the tenant to stay, the previous instruction to leave is clearly no longer in place. If the LL now decides to end the tenancy, they will have to give the tenants the required notice by serving a new S21.