Section 21 incorrectly served?

G_M

Comms69 wrote: »

No I agree with the interpretation, just not necessary the implementation of the law.

It's implemented the same way as any other invalid S21.

LL applies to court for a possession rder.
Tenant enters a defense based on the invalid date.
Court rejects LL's application.

Comms69

G_M wrote: »

It's implemented the same way as any other invalid S21.

LL applies to court for a possession rder.
Tenant enters a defense based on the invalid date.
Court rejects LL's application.

No I mean way the law was originally designed, IE the reason for wanting the law changed to what the act actually did.

FBaby

Another stupid law! The LL can serve notice at exactly 4 months in to terminate the tenancy at exactly 6 months. However, they can't notify the tenant until that exact date, ie. can't give the tenant a little more notice than the exact 2 months? How is that any helpful for the tenant?

So by trying to be 'kind' (of course, it's never kind to give notice on the first 6 months of a tenancy, but who knows the circumstances) and giving as much as notice as possible, the LL is going to be penalised.

Then we get those threads about notice and vocal tenants who say that 2 months notice is way too short and unfair...

Murphybear

Thanks everyone for this, it’s really helpful.

saajan_12

On the face of it, more notice is always better. However in reality, the way the S21 system is designed, it doesn't really give any notice as the LL doesn't have to follow through on it. If the tenant looks elsewhere and leaves on/before S21 expires, they may have an unnecessary move. If they wait for court papers, they are liable for court/bailiffs costs and have much less real knowledge that they HAVE to move.

The idea behind this 'can't serve S21 notice within the first 4 months' rule was to stop LLs serving S21 notice automatically with (really just after) the tenancy agreement but to make them actively make a decision to serve 4 months later if they still wanted to. This may reduce the S21s where LL has no real intention to evict, but an on the ball LL/agent can still automatically serve at the 4 month point.

For OP, yes the S21 is invalid but if you wait to inform them when you get to court it'll buy you more time than if you point it out now. However that will probably sour relations with the LL due to losing court costs and ~3 months on a technicality. So if you do find a new place sooner, it may suit you to tell the LL and suggest a mutually convenient date to surrender so you have minimal rent overlap.