Another Section 21 question

franklee

coal9011 wrote: »

A perfect example of the correct and wholly justified (both legally & morally) use of a Section 21 Notice.

Not if the S21 is invalid, which from what clutton has told us about her procedures would seem to be the case. If all her tenants know she wants them to stay a long time then I really can't see how the S21 can be valid, reasoning here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=6523298&postcount=51

Although it's unlikely the tenant would realise the S21 is iffy and challenge it there is always the chance they decide to take advice. The S21 is judged on technical issues only not on the tenant's behaviour so the tenant could be the devil himself and the S21 if technically invalid would still be thrown out.

coal9011 wrote: »

(although the rarity of such circumstances really does not justify regular issue of S21's at the beginning of all agreements - sorry!)

Exactly. The S21 notice does not need the tenant to be at fault. If clutton thinks "it will still take me about 6 weeks to get him out" then any tenant with an expired SoD S21 hanging over their head, including those not at fault, can be got out in that timescale. After that what reputable landlord would take in such a tenant in with a court possession order on their reference? Obviously bad tenants would not care and lie their way out, but the good ones who've done nothing wrong would find it difficult to rent privately again.

An alternative to this blanket approach, there is provision in law for dealing with tenants in serious breach of the tenancy agreement. That is to use a section 8 notice that has different grounds with different notice periods depending on the offence. The "new boyfriend" has breached several of the grounds that require TWO WEEKS notice. Landlords don't like section 8 as it requires the judge to agree with them but in this clear cut case and with the collaboration of the "young lass" I don't see that would be a problem.

Section 8 also takes longer than accelerated possession for an S21 as it requires a hearing. But if the tenant challenges the S21 there would be a hearing anyway and failing in court due to an invalid S21 would take even longer as it would put the landlord back to square one.

But for clutton's particular case I don't even see why go down the normal eviction routes at all. The "young lass" is the tenant and she clearly wishes to surrender the tenancy. She just has to agree that with clutton and the "new boyfriend" is an illegal occupier

Besides in my limited knowledge of criminal activities if someone nicks something, like the laminate flooring, they normally abscond with the booty. Hanging around the scene of the crime is a sure way to get caught when the crime is reported to the police

guppy

Notlob wrote: »

I think you will find it is ok to have a tenancy for less than 6 months. LL just can't issue a section 21 to expire no earlier than six months. However, tenants can leave after only 3 months if that was the initial term.

Notlob

Apologies, that was a bit of a rash statement. I'll rephrase it.

No order for possession will be granted (under s.21) until six months after a periodic or fixed term tenancy has started. Therefore a tenant is guaranteed a minimum 6 months minimum security of tenure if they want it.

I think that is a bit more accurate, but do correct me if necessary I make no claims to be a lawyer.

BobProperty

clutton wrote: »

i'm taking someone to court tomorrow for the first time, its only taken me since January to get it into court ! I'm preparing my "opening statement" - but i think "put it to you" is a bit OTT for the small claims court !! good luck with yours

I can't remember exactly why the use comes about. It's something like this for example: You can't accuse the other party of being liars. That is for the judge (or jury) to decide. However, you can "put it to them" that they are lying, because they can reply to that, and you are only suggesting something as opposed to stating something. Wonder if anyone knows? Kunekune maybe?

clutton_2

Dontcha just lurve it when frankleee tries to explain to me how to run my business !!!!

franklee

clutton wrote: »

Dontcha just lurve it when frankleee tries to explain to me how to run my business !!!!

I'm doing no such thing. I'm asking how on the one hand your tenants all know you want them to stay for a long time and on the other hand you served them all a S21 on day one of the tenancy and kept the S21 valid.

It seems a sensible question as a S21 is only valid if it is unequivocal and without reservation.

The landlord cannot say on the one hand he wants possession and on the other hand he might not and keep the S21 valid. If the landlord just serves the S21 without an explanation that the tenant may stay he risks the tenant taking the notice seriously and leaving. Besides you have said you explain the S21 to the tenant.

So I put it to you that there seems to be a contradiction in what you have posted and I hope you will take this opportunity to clear up what explanation you give the tenant that lets them know they can stay for a long time and also keeps the S21 valid.

coal9011

franklee wrote: »

So I put it to you that there seems to be a contradiction in what you have posted and I hope you will take this opportunity to clear up what explanation you give the tenant that lets them know they can stay for a long time and also keeps the S21 valid.

_________________________________________________

She(clutton) can't tell you THAT franklee!

If she does she will be telling you and other landlords her "secrets" of precisely what is said (or implied) to her tenant's at the signing of the tenancy agreement and S21 Notice ............ "that's classified information!" :rotfl:

guppy

franklee wrote: »

So I put it to you that there seems to be a contradiction in what you have posted and I hope you will take this opportunity to clear up what explanation you give the tenant that lets them know they can stay for a long time and also keeps the S21 valid.

Can't speak for clutton, but I imagine a tenant could easily "have reason to believe" the LL won't use the S.21 without actually knowing for sure. The LL might even hint this is the case, e.g. by saying that they have no intention of selling the property in the near future, but without actually giving an indication of whether the tenancy might be renewed. The tenant would still know the S.21 is hanging over them.

Trust and good faith might also be relevant. Regardless of the outstanding S.21, some people are ignorant and/or very malleable. Or the tenant might have renewed every six months for years, despite receiving a notice each time he signed a new agreement.

Anyway, surely in practice it would be hard to persuade a judge that a S.21 notice was invalidated by hints alone? Even an outright verbal assurance would be hard to prove, especially when the S.21 is there in black and white.

Just a few practical thoughts anyway...:)

franklee

guppy wrote: »

Can't speak for clutton, but I imagine a tenant could easily "have reason to believe" the LL won't use the S.21 without actually knowing for sure. The LL might even hint this is the case, e.g. by saying that they have no intention of selling the property in the near future, but without actually giving an indication of whether the tenancy might be renewed. The tenant would still know the S.21 is hanging over them.

This is pretty much how I thought it worked. The landlord deliberately keeping things a bit "vague" so as not to shoot themselves in the foot. It leaves the tenant in a state of uncertainty but at least the tenant realises the uncertainty exists.

Which is why I've been so curious about cluttons's approach ever since she posted:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=6523234&postcount=50

clutton wrote: »

all my tenants are happy and they all decorate their homes however they wish - they all know that i want them to stay for a long time - and they want to stay a long time and so they shall.

It's clear there is more than vagueness going on. If the tenant knows she wants then to stay for a long time there is a conflict between the tenant knowing that and maintaining a valid S21. I hesitate to say there's been any misleading but I'm struggling to see what else it can possibly be especially as I've asked several times for clarification that hasn't been forthcoming and has generated defencive responses. If there was an innocent answer then why not post it?

guppy wrote: »

Trust and good faith might also be relevant. Regardless of the outstanding S.21, some people are ignorant and/or very malleable. Or the tenant might have renewed every six months for years, despite receiving a notice each time he signed a new agreement.

More generally:

If the landlord says nothing and just hands over the S21, albeit along with the AST to it's less obvious, then it's up to the tenant to do their own homework to understand what they've got. But if the landlord deliberately tells the tenant they can stay "for a long time" then the tenant is being deliberately mislead if the landlord expects to be able to use that S21.

guppy wrote: »

Anyway, surely in practice it would be hard to persuade a judge that a S.21 notice was invalidated by hints alone? Even an outright verbal assurance would be hard to prove, especially when the S.21 is there in black and white.

This gets right to the nub of my objections to the Sword of Damocles. A landlord who had given an outright verbal assurance would knowingly be evicting the tenant using an invalid S21. Should the tenant challenge the S21 and it get to court the landlord would have to deny in court what they know they said to the tenant... aka lie to the court or see their S21 chucked out ...