Sec 21 judged "red herring"

sparky248

Hi Does anyone know of any organisation that can help with a judgement that was made last week that rendered the section 21 as a "Red Herring" in cases where the tenant wants to leave before the sec 21 end date.
It means that once served a section 21 a tenant has 24 hours to hand their notice in just to be able to leave after one month or they have no choice but to pay the full 2 months rent, even if they leave early.
The Sec 21 apparently does not allow tenants to leave within the 2 months. and only pay until the day they leave.

If anyone wants any further information on the case which was seen at Norwich Court I am happy to discuss it with them.

ThePants999

I thought this was widely understood.

A section 21 notice does absolutely nothing to the tenancy. It merely gives the tenant some legally-required warning that the landlord intends to apply to a court to end the tenancy. If the tenant doesn't want to live with that uncertainty over their heads, and wants to move to somewhere where they'll have more security of tenancy, they need to provide their own notice.

Pixie5740

A Section 21 does not end a tenancy. It is just notice that the landlord might go to court seeking a possession order since a tenancy can only be ended by the tenant or a court.

If the tenant wanted to leave the property the tenant should have served his own notice. Notice served by a tenant has to align with the tenancy periods it has nothing to do with being 24 hours after the Section 21 being served. Alternatively the tenant is free to negotiate a surrender with the landlord.

G_M

As above, there has never been any doubt over this so far as lawyers and professionals are concerned. Obviously there are some tenants, and indeed landlords, who are unfamiliar with the law.

A S21 does not end a tenancy, so to do so either

* the tenant must serve proper notice (which is unaffected by the fact they've received a S21)

* the LL must apply to a court

or

* the LL and tenant must mutually agree an Early Surrender.

By the sound of it, the Norwich court in question was deciding correctly on a case where a tenant left without serving proper notice?

sparky248

The tenant does only have 24 hours to give notice to leave.

If the sec 21 is served on say the 31st of the month, that being the last day of a periodical tenancy then the tenant would have to give notice on the first day of the next months tenancy ie the 1st to be able to leave at the end of that month. The next chance the tenant can give notice is the 1st of the next month but that means leaving on the date the sec 21 expires anyway. Therefore once a sec 21 is served the tenant has 24hrs to give notice or has to stay, or at least pay for the next 2 months.

I would also ask then that if the sec 21 does not end a tenancy then why does the tenant not have to give notice one month before the end date of the section 21. Either the sec 21 IS notice or it isn't ?? If it isn't then every tenant that has left on the date a sec 21 says they have to leave by, without having served 1 months notice, has been in breach of their contract.

00ec25

sparky248 wrote: »

Therefore once a sec 21 is served the tenant has 24hrs to give notice or has to stay, or at least pay for the next 2 months.

I would also ask then that if the sec 21 does not end a tenancy then why does the tenant not have to give notice one month before the end date of the section 21. Either the sec 21 IS notice or it isn't ?? If it isn't then every tenant that has left on the date a sec 21 says they have to leave by, without having served 1 months notice, has been in breach of their contract.

sorry but you really do not understand the system

a section 21 notice does not require the tenant to leave on the date the notice ends. This is fundamental and until you understand what a S21 is you will be going round in circles. The tenant does not have to leave until either bailiffs turn up and physically evict him AFTER the LL has gone to court, got a possession order and appointed said bailiffs, or, the tenant gives correct notice to the LL and leaves at the end of the tenant's notice period, or, the tenant and the LL mutually agree a date

read GM's full guide below:

* Ending/renewing an AST: what happens when a fixed term ends? How can a LL or tenant end a tenancy? What is a periodic tenancy?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67759913&postcount=4

mrginge

sparky248 wrote: »

The tenant does only have 24 hours to give notice to leave.

If the sec 21 is served on say the 31st of the month, that being the last day of a periodical tenancy then the tenant would have to give notice on the first day of the next months tenancy ie the 1st to be able to leave at the end of that month. The next chance the tenant can give notice is the 1st of the next month but that means leaving on the date the sec 21 expires anyway. Therefore once a sec 21 is served the tenant has 24hrs to give notice or has to stay, or at least pay for the next 2 months.

What difference does the s.21 make?
If it's the last day of the period, the tenant has one day to serve their one month notice and leave at the end of the following month. The s.21 is irrelevant.

I would also ask then that if the sec 21 does not end a tenancy then why does the tenant not have to give notice one month before the end date of the section 21. Either the sec 21 IS notice or it isn't ?? If it isn't then every tenant that has left on the date a sec 21 says they have to leave by, without having served 1 months notice, has been in breach of their contract.

Yes. That's bang on.

Pixie5740

sparky248 wrote: »

The tenant does only have 24 hours to give notice to leave.

Please quote the legislation that says a tenant only has 24 hours to give notice.

sparky248 wrote: »

If the sec 21 is served on say the 31st of the month, that being the last day of a periodical tenancy then the tenant would have to give notice on the first day of the next months tenancy ie the 1st to be able to leave at the end of that month.

Ahhhh so there isn't any legislation stating that tenants only have 24 hours notice. The legislation in fact states that tenant's notice has to align with tenancy periods so it might be this specific case the tenant has 24 hours between a Section 21 being served and serving their own notice which is not the same thing at all as saying that all tenants only have 24 hours notice. This assumes that the tenancy periods in this specific case do in fact run from 1st of the month to last day of the month of course.

sparky248 wrote: »

The next chance the tenant can give notice is the 1st of the next month but that means leaving on the date the sec 21 expires anyway. Therefore once a sec 21 is served the tenant has 24hrs to give notice or has to stay, or at least pay for the next 2 months.

Indeed the tenant has to pay rent until the tenancy ends.

sparky248 wrote: »

I would also ask then that if the sec 21 does not end a tenancy then why does the tenant not have to give notice one month before the end date of the section 21.

There's no ifs about it, a Section 21 does not end the tenancy.

The tenant does not have to serve notice a month before the date on the Section 21. The tenant could give notice after this or not at all and let it go all the way to court for a possession order to be granted. Landlords don't get a court date for the day following the date in the Section 21 notice. In fact I think the average eviction time is 4 to 6 months at that's assuming the Section 21 was issued correctly, many are not.

sparky248 wrote: »

Either the sec 21 IS notice or it isn't ?? If it isn't then every tenant that has left on the date a sec 21 says they have to leave by, without having served 1 months notice, has been in breach of their contract.

It is notice but as explained several times already and just once more to hammer the message home a Section 21 is notice that the landlord might go to court to seek a possession order. It is not notice that the tenancy is ending on the date given in the Section 21 because the tenancy cannot be ended by the landlord it can only be ended by the court or the tenant as per the Housing Act 1988.

You are correct that any tenant who leaves by the date given in the tenancy agreement without serving their own notice or agreeing a mutual surrender of the tenancy can be pursued through the courts. However, whilst perfectly legal it would be mean of a landlord to serve a Section 21 so that they can go to court to get a possession order to then turn around and sue the tenant because they left. Mean but legal.

G_M

The 24 hours is nothing to do with the S21.

It is to do with the tenant's normal notice requirements. If the tenant decides, on the last day of a periodic tenancy (whether he's received a S21 that day or not) that he wishes to leave, he must serve notice within 24 hours in order to end the tenancy at the end of the next period (ie a month later).

This is because notice must be served on /before the first or last day of a period.

I would also ask then that if the sec 21 does not end a tenancy then why does the tenant not have to give notice one month before the end date of the section 21. Either the sec 21 IS notice or it isn't ?? If it isn't then every tenant that has left on the date a sec 21 says they have to leave by, without having served 1 months notice, has been in breach of their contract.

The 'notice' in a 'S21 Notice' is not notice to end the tenancy. It is a notice (under the Housing Act 1988) that the landlord may thereafter apply toa court for possession of the property - ie it is a 'warning' if you like (which is required by law).

In the vast majority of cases, this implies the landlord wants his property back. So if the tenat leaves at the end of the 2 months, the landlord is happy and so does not care that by strict legal definition the tenant has breached the contract.