Section 21 - Where do we stand.?

Kynthia

bouicca21 wrote: »

If your agreement is with him then I don't see that she has any standing to ask for anything ...

She's the landlord's agent.

DandelionPatrol

Paddy_Jive wrote: »

The letter also says they will be issuing us with a new tenancy agreement in due course which will begin on 1st Oct...

Interesting! I may be wrong, but an offer of another tenancy would seem to invalidate the S21

bouicca21 wrote: »

What is the status of the LL's wife visa a vis the property? Who is your tenancy agreement with?

Of course if it is from her, rather than the LL, it might not count .... But ....

Kynthia wrote: »

She's the landlord's agent.

.... which makes a difference.

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Interesting! I may be wrong, but an offer of another tenancy would seem to invalidate the S21
- Sorry pal, but doesnt work like that. Though the notice is invalid as previously explained. An offer of a contract does not invalidate the s.21, unless it is accepted.

Of course if it is from her, rather than the LL, it might not count .... But ....
- Doesn't matter if it came from her, as long as it was on the LLs instructions.

.... which makes a difference.

Not really. We are looking at the LLs intentions when an agent acts on their behalf. If the LL wants a s.21 issued, then in theory he could ask anyone at all to do so. As long as it was with his knowledge, instruction and consent (which all tie in together really).

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

Interesting! I may be wrong, but an offer of another tenancy would seem to invalidate the S21
- Sorry pal, but doesnt work like that.

There is debate about whether a S21 must be "without reservation."

Painsmith solicitors claim:

"8.If the landlord agrees to the tenant extending the tenancy for say a week or ten days after the section 21 Notice expires then the Notice will be void and would have to be served again.

9.If the landlord or agent writes offering to extend the tenancy any Section 21 Notice served prior to the letter or at the same time as the letter will be technically void, as there is a conflict between the two actions."

http://www.painsmith.co.uk/painsmithfiles/articles/termination.doc

However I've not heard of relevant case law, and the Housing Act (S21) does not require it.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

There is debate about whether a S21 must be "without reservation."

Painsmith solicitors claim:



http://www.painsmith.co.uk/painsmithfiles/articles/termination.doc

However I've not heard of relevant case law, and the Housing Act (S21) does not require it.

I see why there's a debate, but offer and agree arent the same thing.

The LL is offering to extend the tenancy (by whatever period) if the tenants agree, then I agree, it's void.

But simply offering to extend it, shouldn't void any S.21 - case law would be good on this, let's hope we get some soon - in either direction.

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

But simply offering to extend it, shouldn't void any S.21 - case law would be good on this, let's hope we get some soon - in either direction.

Suppose a LL indicated in an evidenced way that he would extend a lease after having served a S21. And suppose that when that offer came, it was on terms substantially to the detriment of the tenant. And further suppose that the tenant had relied on the indication, but when the offer arrived, most of the 2 months notice had expired. You might find that estoppal could be brought into play and that the LL had indeed invalidated his S21.

Even if a misunderstanding was found to be at the root of this, parties might well be put back in the position they were in - ie tenant having 2 months unexpired notice.

You will note that in this post and my earlier post, I have tried to express things as possibilities, not certainties and I don't think that your knowledge extends to the point where you have enough of a base to say 'Sorry pal ...'

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Suppose a LL indicated in an evidenced way that he would extend a lease after having served a S21. And suppose that when that offer came, it was on terms substantially to the detriment of the tenant. And further suppose that the tenant had relied on the indication, but when the offer arrived, most of the 2 months notice had expired. You might find that estoppal could be brought into play and that the LL had indeed invalidated his S21.

Even if a misunderstanding was found to be at the root of this, parties might well be put back in the position they were in - ie tenant having 2 months unexpired notice.

You will note that in this post and my earlier post, I have tried to express things as possibilities, not certainties and I don't think that your knowledge extends to the point where you have enough of a base to say 'Sorry pal ...'

Whoa, no offence was meant there buddy.

I dont agree with your conclusion.

LL serves s.21 notice - what whatever reason.

He or she then decides they'd happily keep the tenants on for a fixed term (let's say 12 months)

if the tenant says yes, all agreed.

if the tenant says no, the LL proceeds to evict.

If you can define what you mean by evidenced indication, i'd be interested to debate this further.

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

Whoa, no offence was meant there buddy.

I dont agree with your conclusion.

LL serves s.21 notice - what whatever reason.

He or she then decides they'd happily keep the tenants on for a fixed term (let's say 12 months)

if the tenant says yes, all agreed.

if the tenant says no, the LL proceeds to evict.

If you can define what you mean by evidenced indication, i'd be interested to debate this further.

Your scenario does not match the one I proposed.

G_M

Guest you're ignoring the implied "without reservation".

Now, like dandelion, I agree there is no certainty with this, but the arguement, is as I understand it, that a S21 is a notice of intent (to seek possession).

By simultaneously, or subsequently, offering a renewal or other tenancy, the intent is thrown into doubt. There is a reservation. The Notice is no longer a notice of intent but a notice of possibility.

As an iside, I don't think dandelion interpreted your "sorry pal but it doesn't work like that" as offensive, I think (may be wrong!) the problem was that you were being catagorical about a legal interpretation that seems very much in doubt either way.

Unless someone can quote case law /precedent?

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Guest you're ignoring the implied "without reservation".

Now, like dandelion, I agree there is no certainty with this, but the arguement, is as I understand it, that a S21 is a notice of intent (to seek possession).

By simultaneously, or subsequently, offering a renewal or other tenancy, the intent is thrown into doubt. There is a reservation. The Notice is no longer a notice of intent but a notice of possibility.

As an iside, I don't think dandelion interpreted your "sorry pal but it doesn't work like that" as offensive, I think (may be wrong!) the problem was that you were being catagorical about a legal interpretation that seems very much in doubt either way.

Unless someone can quote case law /precedent?

Always happy to debate further.

We all accept that a s.21 notice, is notice of intent. I suppose the question as I see it is:

1: is it intent of removing the tenant permanently
or
2: intent of ending the current tenancy.

Now 1 will likely happen as a result of 2. But if the LL simply wants the security of a fixed term then really, it seems sensible to me that it's a choice of sign or be evicted.

I can see both points, I just dont think in this case (though the s.21 is invalid for other reasons anyway) that an offer of a further fixed term invalidates the section 21.

I would say it's still a notice of intent. I will go to court, unless you agree the following terms.