Section 21 - Where do we stand.?

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

The S21 is notice of intent to recover possession. Therefore it has to be 1.

I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that when the AST legislation was drafted, the intent was that there would just be the one fixed term, followed by an indefinite SPT. This over the years has been abused by LL 's wanting the 'security' of fixed terms, under heavy prompting from Agents with both eyes firmly fixed on renewal fees.

Essentially, your suggestion that the S21 could be used for 2 is reflective of abuse of the S21 as a coercion to a new agreement and I don't really think that Parliament either intended or expected this development.

franklee

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

The S21 is notice of intent to recover possession. Therefore it has to be 1.

I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that when the AST legislation was drafted, the intent was that there would just be the one fixed term, followed by an indefinite SPT. This over the years has been abused by LL 's wanting the 'security' of fixed terms, under heavy prompting from Agents with both eyes firmly fixed on renewal fees.

Essentially, your suggestion that the S21 could be used for 2 is reflective of abuse of the S21 as a coercion to a new agreement and I don't really think that Parliament either intended or expected this development.

I think the intention was that a tenant get two months notice fair and clear and that two months is supposed to be time for a tenant to arrange moving home. If a landlord says on the one hand here's your notice and on the other hand here's an offer of a new fixed term is the tenant going to be using that time to move? Probably not if he is hanging around negotiating the proposed new offer.

A fair way for a landlord to use coercion is to say here is a new fixed term agreement sign it or I will serve notice. At least that way the tenant gets his full two months before facing court action. If the section 21 is running concurrent with an offer from the landlord to start a new tenancy then the tenant may not have time to move before being taken to court. I really do not think this is what was what Parliament intended. Remember the section 21 is a no fault notice that will ask a tenant not at fault to move home, hopefully Parliament and the courts don't take that lightly. Moving home is big deal especially when it comes at a time of someone else's choosing.

My guess is that Parliament expected landlords to serve notice only in the case when they really want possession and not willy nilly to manipulate the tenant as we have now.

The section 21 notice is the landlord's most powerful tool, continued bad practise from the try-it-on landlords risks eroding it's power as at least some of these loopholes are slowly being addressed as we see from the legalisation that will apply to new tenancies from October 1st this year.

DandelionPatrol

franklee wrote: »

A fair way for a landlord to use coercion ....

.... My eyes began to pop out!

franklee wrote: »

.... is to say here is a new fixed term agreement sign it or I will serve notice.

I agree!