Section 13 notice, but it's all a bit crazy

Gavin83

GDB2222 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Does the friend like and wish to stay in the property?
Does the LL generally do the right thing in terms of responding to any issues that need to be addressed?
Does the friend accept that some movement in the rent is appropriate?

If the above three all get a "yes", then I would suggest that going to a rent tribunal to have the S13 determined as invalid might serve to get the LL's back up and sour relationships resulting in the friend leaving the property sooner rather than later.

Once the invalid S13 is confirmed, the LL might revert to the rent increase clause in the contract which the OP has calculated would be a higher figure anyway.

A more pragmatic option for the friend might be to seek to reach an agreed rent increase.

• Currently £1,240 (since 2019)
• Proposed by LL £1,550
• Market rent around £1,500

Maybe the friend could respond back to the LL that they are willing to discuss a rent adjustment but the proposed amount is more than the current market rent for similar properties.  Then counter-offer with, say £1,400.  The friend could try to buy some delay, for example "I won't be able to afford that change until April, when I will have my annual pay review at work."
If the friend wants to stay and the LL wants the friend to stay at the property, that type of approach might be more amenable to maintaining a positive ongoing relationship.

They are happy to move, if necessary. 

Presumably they’re buying their own house or planning to move in with relatives then? Because it’s unlikely the landlord will give them a reference if they sour the relationship and given there’s a whole queue of people for every property at the moment it’s unlikely they’ll be first choice for another property. Unless of course they’re willing to pay way over the odds which defeats the purpose of moving anyway.

Id advise keeping it amicable and choosing their battles.

theartfullodger

MobileSaver said:

theartfullodger said:

MobileSaver said:

macman said:

Serving an S21 will fail, as providing the wrong edition of 'How to Rent' will invalidate it.

Which in truth is a pretty petty reason for the S21 to fail. 

The irony of course is that it's stuff like this causing landlords to sell up which is one of the reasons rents are going through the roof and rentals are getting harder and harder to find...

If landlords can't be a****d to comply with the law they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Do you think all motorists who drive at 31mph in a 30mph limit should also be penalised by the authorities or should rigidly complying with the law without any latitude for minor transgressions only apply to landlords?

Thank you for your kind question:  Well, yes.  Otherwise why doesn't the law & signs say speed limit is (say,,  ) 35 or 40??  OK the penalty could be small...

current situation just encourages people to ignore the law..  (eg e-scooters...#10 parties... vapes chucked on the ground etc etc etc.. - feel free to add to the v v long list...)

Others will hold alternative views...


Best regards to all..

MobileSaver

theartfullodger said:

MobileSaver said:

theartfullodger said:

MobileSaver said:

macman said:

Serving an S21 will fail, as providing the wrong edition of 'How to Rent' will invalidate it.

Which in truth is a pretty petty reason for the S21 to fail. 

The irony of course is that it's stuff like this causing landlords to sell up which is one of the reasons rents are going through the roof and rentals are getting harder and harder to find...

If landlords can't be a****d to comply with the law they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Do you think all motorists who drive at 31mph in a 30mph limit should also be penalised by the authorities or should rigidly complying with the law without any latitude for minor transgressions only apply to landlords?

Well, yes.  Otherwise why doesn't the law & signs say speed limit is 35 or 40?? 

Yes, of course you do. LOL

Back in the real world most normal, sane, rational people accept that someone should not be punished for trivial inconsequential mistakes and even the police themselves have guidelines not to prosecute for 31mph in a 30mph limit unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

This is simply an extension of a fundamental aspect of UK law, de minimis, whereby "the law" does not want to and should not concern itself with minor insignificant transgressions; in my opinion the issuing of the wrong edition of How To Rent comfortably comes under that definition.