Landlord Served Section 21 in August. She now says I can't move out without notice

JamesJUK

When the LL fails to adhere to an enforcement notice.... Quite an important point!!

You can't admit you're wrong can you? You're a very stubborn being. Either way I couldn't care less, I know the landlord is in the wrong regardless of your ignorant responses. I could pull up more, but it's pointless. You swear black is blue, and nobody is going to change your mind. It's best you leave this thread.

booksurr

JamesJUK wrote: »

http://www.propertysurveying.co.uk/newsletter/?page_id=10746Explain away ...

case law is based on the facts of the case ....
yes you have already involved the council
yes they issued instructions
yes your LL complied with those
no you do not have a comparable case

Guest101

benjus wrote: »

Are you sure about this? It's news to me if correct. AIUI the S21 notice - in addition to being notice of a potential court action - serves as the landlord's notice to the tenant that they wish for the tenancy to be terminated on the specified date. The tenant then has the option to comply with this and return the property to the landlord on that date with no need to serve notice themselves or pay any rent beyond that date.

However, if the tenant were to remain in the property with the landlord's consent after that date, the notice would become invalid and new notice would need to be served (by either landlord or tenant) to terminate the tenancy.

No, a section 21 notice is just that, notice to seek possession via the courts.


It's still upto the tenant to serve their own notice.


If the notice includes a caveat such as ' if you vacate by the XXth of YY ZZZZ' I will accept this in lieu of notice' , it would be ok.

JamesJUK

Pixie5740:

“We will continue to crack down hard on landlords who think they can get away with allowing their tenants to suffer in sub-standard conditions.”
The message is clear; Landlords must not unduly neglect their tenants, particularly when those tenants bring items of repair to their attention. Doing so will result in intervention by the Local Council – which can become very expensive for the offending property owner.

So it's ok, my position wasn't sub standard. My landlord didn't neglect my requests to have the boiler repaired. And the financial hardship I faced during this time is entirely my own fault.

Thats the gist of this right?

Guest101

JamesJUK wrote: »

You can't admit you're wrong can you? You're a very stubborn being. Either way I couldn't care less, I know the landlord is in the wrong regardless of your ignorant responses. I could pull up more, but it's pointless. You swear black is blue, and nobody is going to change your mind. It's best you leave this thread.

I'm much worse than just stubborn, I am a right <Blankety Blank>, however the problem for you is, I'm also correct.


No-one has said the LL is in the right, they're a bad LL, we all agree. But you still don't have a case!

Pixie5740

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Poppie68

Op You asked for advice because you don't know the law/ramifications, you are getting the answers you requested but are basically saying everyone is incorrect.... So it's confusing because you seem to think you knew the answers before you asked!!!

You would do well to take the excellent advice offered by all here, they do know what they are talking about, ignoring them could well cost you more than it would just to pay the last months rent....

Guest101

JamesJUK wrote: »

Pixie5740:



So it's ok, my position wasn't sub standard. My landlord didn't neglect my requests to have the boiler repaired. And the financial hardship I faced during this time is entirely my own fault.

Thats the gist of this right?

Nope. It's not OK. But that doesn't mean you have a case....

marleyboy

JamesJUK wrote: »

Jesus, some people can't accept they might be at fault themselves. Just like my landlord infact.

Yes I did kind of notice this about you OP.

Why is everyone even bothering from this point on?

Leave the OP to it, they have clearly made their minds up on the matter, dont actually need any advice from the point they go into denial regarding their own faults in this matter. That they have reduced themselves to throwing abuse to those who even dare to say they are in the wrong on this matter. There really is no point in assisting them any further.

Best to wait for them to come back in a few Months asking yet more irrelevant questions to the predicament they then find themselves in when (not if) it goes to court.

booksurr

benjus wrote: »

Are you sure about this? It's news to me if correct. AIUI the S21 notice - in addition to being notice of a potential court action - serves as the landlord's notice to the tenant that they wish for the tenancy to be terminated absolutely not on the specified date. the specificed date is the date by which the LL can start court proceedings. As stated countless times only a court or a tenant can unilaterally terminate a tenancy The tenant then has the option to comply with this and return the property to the landlord on that date with no need to serve notice themselves or pay any rent beyond that date. correct if the tenant pays rent up to the very day, cease paying "early" without the tenant having served notice themselves and paid to the date of that notice and your statement is wrong

However, if the tenant were to remain in the property with the landlord's consent after that date, the notice would become invalid and new notice would need to be served (by either landlord or tenant) to terminate the tenancy.

corrected as above