We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Silly S21 question
ThePants999
Posts: 1,748 Forumite
Regulars here all know that a tenancy can only be ended by the tenant, by mutual agreement or a court.
If a landlord issues a section 21 notice, and the tenant leaves when it expires without serving their own notice, what is it that stops a landlord claiming "hey, that was just notice of my intention to seek possession, the tenancy hasn't actually ended yet and you still owe me rent"? Is it that a court would consider the combination of the S21 and the tenant leaving to effectively be mutual agreement?
If a landlord issues a section 21 notice, and the tenant leaves when it expires without serving their own notice, what is it that stops a landlord claiming "hey, that was just notice of my intention to seek possession, the tenancy hasn't actually ended yet and you still owe me rent"? Is it that a court would consider the combination of the S21 and the tenant leaving to effectively be mutual agreement?
0
Comments
-
Absolutely nothing.0
-
Tenant should serve notice before leaving.
In practice, in 99/100, the LL wanted the tenant to leave, the tenant left, so no one takes further action.0 -
Thanks. Given the number of tenants who don't realise that they don't actually have to leave when the S21 expires, I'm surprised that we don't hear about unscrupulous landlords exploiting this...!0
-
I'm sure I read about a landlord who took the tenant to court for arrears when the tenant had moved out because a Section 21 had been served. It might even have been on this forum....I'll try and find a link. It was a total d i c k move.0
-
I think most courts in practice wouldn't award in LLs favour. But only on the basis that the tenant is a consumer and courts tend to side with them on such issues.
It is a genuine possibility however and tenants should agree a leaving date in writing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards