Section 21 have you got the letter?

HappyMJ

red_devil wrote: »

leave when I'm ready, the question was about the letter though and why they are so bothered whether or not I have received it.

"When I'm ready" is too vague. You need to have some clue as to when you want to go. It's make a big difference as to the advice you need. You won't get far if you ring the landlord and tell them you want to go "when I'm ready".

The second part has been answered already. They just want to know you've got it and understand it. Not everyone understands what a Section 21 notice is.

mrginge

This thread is like pulling teeth.

LEJC

red_devil wrote: »

leave when I'm ready, the question was about the letter though and why they are so bothered whether or not I have received it.

I'm going to try and answer this for you....your LL needs to establish the date you received your letter in order to allow you the correct notice to leave.
As you did not respond to the first letter the LL sent a second one recorded delivery so when you signed for it there was a clear indication that you had received it....and your formal notice to leave started then.

The other posters on this thread have tried to give you advice on how long you could stay in your home before being evicted...you can stay indefinitely but that is likely to cost you money and if you dont look for somewhere else to live may make it difficult to get somewhere to your liking going forward.

Its a devil may care attitude to have if you are going to maintain the stance of leave "when you are ready"...it would seem that your LL is insistent that you leave by the date on the second letter that you received and failure to do that may result in you facing the eviction process.

I hope that answers your question and wish you luck with whatever you decide

franklee

LEJC wrote: »

... your LL needs to establish the date you received your letter in order to allow you the correct notice to leave.
As you did not respond to the first letter the LL sent a second one recorded delivery so when you signed for it there was a clear indication that you had received it....and your formal notice to leave started then.

Service is all about when the letter was sent (and how) with proof of postage, witness to a hand delivery or whatever. There's no need for the landlord to prove the tenant received it. For example, first class post is deemed served the second working day after postage even if it never arrives. So long as the landlord has proof of postage he will still be OK. However if the landlord can get the tenant to admit receipt it cuts off any chance a tenant has of arguing the notice wasn't served. So an acknowledgement of receipt from the tenant is nice to have but not necessary.

It may be the first section 21 notice is still valid (if it ws valid in the first place I can't recall the details). Serving a second one doesn't invalidate the first although it depends what else the landlord put in the letter with the second one, He may have agreed not to use the first.

If I was the OP, given the length of time the OP has lived there, I'd be double checking there wasn't a fault with the paperwork at the start of the tenancy which gave the OP an assured tenancy instead of an assured shorthold tenancy. That would give the OP security of tenure. However despite the best efforts of many posters trying to help over several threads it still looks to me like the OP hasn't checked this in sufficient detail. Oh well, everyone was just trying to help but some folks can't be helped.

red_devil

I didn't really want to give all my details away you don't know who is reading this thread. Intend to go mid july. ive answered all questions I can. I don't have much info going back to 96 though.

Thanks.

franklee

red_devil wrote: »

I didn't really want to give all my details away you don't know who is reading this thread. Intend to go mid july. ive answered all questions I can. I don't have much info going back to 96 though.

The default tenancy back then was an assured tenancy. If you have one of those you cannot be evicted by a section 21. Please get this looked at in detail, ring or email Shelter or something like that. Tell them when you first moved in and ask for assistance in checking what tenancy you have. Do not go by what the tenancy agreement is titled - the onus is on your landlord to prove the right notice was served on you to create an assured shorthold tenancy.

If you do not take advice you may be giving up a secure tenancy which is a valuable thing to have.

So collect all the paperwork you do have together and get some assistance in checking it out in detail!

Gigervamp

The only info you/we need is the actual tenancy agreement that you signed in 96 and whether it says that it's an assured tenancy, OR an assured shorthold tenancy.

The two are different and the outcome could be that you won't have to move.

molerat

red_devil wrote: »

yes assured shorthold tenancy.

But without the serving of a S20 notice it isn't. http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/content/what-is-a-section-20-notice

franklee

Gigervamp wrote: »

The only info you/we need is the actual tenancy agreement that you signed in 96 and whether it says that it's an assured tenancy, OR an assured shorthold tenancy.

Nope, the title on the tenancy agreement doesn't define what it is. To be an AST the OP's landlord needed to have served a section 20 notice. Now we have asked the OP if that was done but either they do not know or do not want to post it in public. So as I said the OP should ask the likes of Shelter for advice. What I would not do in the OP's shoes is let a possible assured tenancy go without having checked it wasn't one.

G_M

mrginge wrote: »

This thread is like pulling teeth.

which is why I dropped out.....