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

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

JJ is correct.

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

When is the new fixed term to be deemed unsigned?

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

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."

We all agree that this is rubbish. However this is irrelevant.

A SPT was created automatically. A contractual periodic AST would have required both parties to agree to it by the time the fixed term AST ended.

Let's not over-think this case.


Even if a contractual periodic AST was created, it is not in fact obvious that the s.21 notice would have been invalidated.
Indeed, if you are into detailed legal arguments then one can argue that s.21(1) states that a court still has to grant possession to the landlord in such case.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

When is the new fixed term to be deemed unsigned?

It's irrelevant when. But for the purposes of this, it is unsigned as soon as offered and received.

The facts are simple sign fixed term or be evicted.

The two are definitely not mutually exclusive. And that is the crux of the matter.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

It's irrelevant when. But for the purposes of this, it is unsigned as soon as offered and received.

The facts are simple sign fixed term or be evicted.

The two are definitely not mutually exclusive. And that is the crux of the matter.

Doing it that way round (sign or be evicted) I agree. If the tenancy agreement isn't signed, the eviction process may begin by serving a S21.

But the LL is doing it the other way round. Serving the S21 and then offering a new tenancy.

So, does the LL want the tenant to leave, or not?

kinger101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Doing it that way round (sign or be evicted) I agree. If the tenancy agreement isn't signed, the eviction process may begin by serving a S21.

But the LL is doing it the other way round. Serving the S21 and then offering a new tenancy.

So, does the LL want the tenant to leave, or not?

Oh, for Christ's sake. The S21 notice (which we've still not established was valid when served) relates to the previous fixed term tenancy agreement. Offering another fixed term tenancy agreement does not invalidate this. They are two separate contracts.

We know what the landlord wants. Another fixed term. Why pretend this isn't clear?

lighting_up_the_chalice

kinger101 wrote: »

Oh, for Christ's sake. The S21 notice (which we've still not established was valid when served) relates to the previous fixed term tenancy agreement. Offering another fixed term tenancy agreement does not invalidate this. They are two separate contracts.

So a notice served on ONE contract is valid on ALL contracts? That's an interesting argument. (By "interesting", I mean "Flawed".)

kinger101 wrote: »

We know what the landlord wants. Another fixed term. Why pretend this isn't clear?

Because the LL has served a S21 which, as far as I'm aware, indicates that they want the tenant to leave. That's why this isn't clear..... or unequivocal...... which it should be.

franklee

kinger101 wrote: »

We know what the landlord wants. Another fixed term. Why pretend this isn't clear?

It's clear now. The problem the OP has it that it wasn't clear during the S21 notice period so the OP didn't make arrangements based on knowing that so is out of time before the agent can apply to court.

That the agent is threatening to start proceedings in the county court so soon on the back of the old S21 that was served at the last renewal and that the tenant was probably told was just routine has probably come as a bit of a shock. It is quite a mixed message to go from thinking you are negotiating to remain to possession proceedings being kicked off within the space of a week.

If the agent was to drop the old S21 and serve serve a fresh one the OP would have the normal two months to make arrangements but that's not what they're doing.

Using the old S21 maybe excusable if faced with a bad tenant but is a rubbish way to treat a decent tenant IMO. Frankly I'm surprised the LL wants to evict the OP considering he wants to keep letting the property but the agent's email indicates it's the LL's instruction.

It certainly puts the lie to claims that good tenants don't need to worry about the S21 having been served as no sane landlord would evict a good tenant. Every tenant needs to be aware of "Sword of Damocles" section 21 notices or they may end up in a pickle like the OP's.

jjlandlord

That's just a value judgement, not the way it legally works.

Nobbie1967

I think the OP may have got bored of the arguing, if they're still here it may be worth posting details of when the S21 was served and how long they want to remain in the property. This will enable posters to advise a suitable strategy. My first thoughts are to reply to the bluster from the agent with more bluster pointing out that the court action for repossession would fail due to the sort of issues being argued over here. Re-state your willingness to continue on on a periodic tenancy and maybe pay an additional month up front to reassure the landlord. Make sure this is copied to the LL as well as agent.

mrginge

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

I think the OP may have got bored of the arguing, if they're still here it may be worth posting details of when the S21 was served and how long they want to remain in the property. This will enable posters to advise a suitable strategy. My first thoughts are to reply to the bluster from the agent with more bluster pointing out that the court action for repossession would fail due to the sort of issues being argued over here. Re-state your willingness to continue on on a periodic tenancy and maybe pay an additional month up front to reassure the landlord. Make sure this is copied to the LL as well as agent.

All of that is a waste of time if the landlord requires a fixed term, which is entirely possible.

Your assertion that the agent is full of bluster is a bit presumptuous and the antagonistic response to them that you suggest would just make the OP look clueless and probably speed up the eviction process.