Possible mis-sold tenancy?

propertyrental

km1500 said:

I would take slight issue with 'no reason at all' -  the reason often is that the initial fixed term period agreed by both parties at the beginning of the contract has ended.

of course every decision made by either a tenant or landlord has a reason. We all have reasons for everything we do.

artful was making a legal point though, and is right that S21 permits a landlord to evict tenant for NO REASON AT ALL. 

theartfullodger

Indeed, see wording of Form 6a, the most common mechanism for notifying s21.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/assured-tenancy-forms#form-6a

(but I consider requiring no reason at all is appalling, other countries e.g. Scotland have disposed of their equivalent to s21, thankfully)

Best wishes to all.

km1500

But you could say the same about any contract?

Or example,  after the 12 months is up, the law allows you to decline to renew your car insurance for a futher 12 months for NO REASON AT ALL

_Penny_Dreadful

km1500 said:

But you could say the same about any contract?

Or example,  after the 12 months is up, the law allows you to decline to renew your car insurance for a futher 12 months for NO REASON AT ALL

You're comparing apples with oranges.  An AST is not the same type of contract as car insurance.  An AST is such a specific type of contract it has its own legislation and in that legislation it sets out the automatic creation of a periodic tenancy the day following the end of the fixed term.

Whilst a Section 21 does not require a ground if there were a ground it wouldn't just be because the fixed term was ending.  In this case the landlord wants to take up occupation of the property which is fair enough.  However, the landlord, and by extension their agent, should have made it crystal clear to the tenant that there was never any intention of wanting this tenancy to continue beyond 9 months.  

Section62

propertyrental said:

km1500 said:

I would take slight issue with 'no reason at all' -  the reason often is that the initial fixed term period agreed by both parties at the beginning of the contract has ended.

of course every decision made by either a tenant or landlord has a reason. We all have reasons for everything we do.

artful was making a legal point though, and is right that S21 permits a landlord to evict tenant for NO REASON AT ALL. 

If the point were a legal one then wouldn't the correct phrase be "no fault" (on the tenant's part)?  This would deal with the logical inconsistency between the phrases "every decision made by either a tenant or landlord has a reason" and "NO REASON AT ALL", which obviously can't both be true.

'No fault' has its equivalent in divorce law where more enlightened jurisdictions are moving away from the concept of one party having to be at fault (and thus requiring many divorcing couples to manufacture some contrived 'fault', thereby turning the whole process into an unnecessarily adversarial fight). This reflects the pragmatic view that if a relationship has broken down there is no point making things worse than they are already by either or both parties having to drag the other through the courts to achieve the inevitable.

A quick glance through the artfull's Form 6a link (the notes, as well as the form itself) helpfully confirms the wording used is "no fault" rather than the somewhat more loaded "NO REASON AT ALL".

km1500

in fact is it not true that the section 21 notice (which is issued 2 months before the end of the fixed term) states that the landlord does not wish to renew the tenancy (as opposed to a notice stating a wish to end the tenancy)

theartfullodger

Section62 said:

propertyrental said:

km1500 said:

I would take slight issue with 'no reason at all' -  the reason often is that the initial fixed term period agreed by both parties at the beginning of the contract has ended.

of course every decision made by either a tenant or landlord has a reason. We all have reasons for everything we do.

artful was making a legal point though, and is right that S21 permits a landlord to evict tenant for NO REASON AT ALL. 

.............

A quick glance through the artfull's Form 6a link (the notes, as well as the form itself) helpfully confirms the wording used is "no fault" rather than the somewhat more loaded "NO REASON AT ALL".

Perhaps 'twould have been better had my original wording been "... and landlord needs to provide NO REASON AT ALL for the eviction...

There are more than enough posts from puzzled tenants on here and other related sites asking "but why are we being evicted, we've complied with the contract, paid rent in full & on time, done nothing wrong"... or similar wording..

Form 6a shows landlord needs to provide no reason at all.... 

Best wishes to all

Section62

theartfullodger said:

There are more than enough posts from puzzled tenants on here and other related sites asking "but why are we being evicted, we've complied with the contract, paid rent in full & on time, done nothing wrong"... or similar wording..

Like there are threads on the banking boards wondering why their bank account has been closed when all they did was pay in a bit of crypto/eBay/gambling proceeds.  The general response there is that businesses have a right to do business with who they want, subject to not discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic.

Your point above, if anything, suggests there is a dire need for prospective tenants to be warned when entering into a tenancy agreement (in England) that the landlord is able to end the agreement on a "no fault" basis, even if the tenant hasn't done anything wrong.  Likewise that they should be better informed of all their rights and responsibilities before entering into a contract and incurring costs (e.g. moving).

Maybe legislation should be introduced so the tenancy agreement can only be signed in the presence of a solicitor who must first explain all of this to the prospective tenant?

pinkshoes

markb1_2 said:

We took out a new tenancy in late August last year for a 3 bedroom house (family home). The initial tenancy agreement was for 9 months. When we questioned the initial 9 month contract as opposed to the usual 6 month initial period, the agent told us it was because the landlady wanted to give the new tenants a proper chance to settle in to the place, and were advised (verbally by the agent) that after the initial 9 month contract there would either be a new fixed term contract or a rolling monthly contract. However, quite shockingly, we have now received a Section 21 notice to quit at the end of the 9 month contract. When we viewed the property, we made it explicitly clear that we were looking for a long term let where we could make a home and would not have taken this property if we knew it was a finite 9 month tenancy. We have also recently learned from a nearby resident that the landlady always intended to return to the property for the summer, so there was never any intention of renewing/extending the tenancy. So we feel that we were misled and mis-sold this tenancy. My question is, is there anything we can do about this, as we entered the contract based on false information?

An S21 is just an invitation to move out. They cannot force you to move out on that date.

Personally, as this LL clearly set the 9 month fixed term for their own convenience even though they knew you wanted a long term let, then I'd play them at their own game. 

Ultimately, you're going to have to move, but I certainly wouldn't be moving at the end of the S21. I'd find something that you can move into at the end of the summer, and let the LL know that the only suitable property you have found isn't available until mid-August so you'll be able to move out then.

If the LL has any common sense, they won't take it to court as firstly you'd have probably moved out by the time they got a court date, and secondly a judge would be aware how difficult it is in some areas to get a rental property, so wouldn't be overly impressed with a LL taking a tenant to court who had already found another property, albeit a couple of months after the S21.

MobileSaver

Section62 said:

theartfullodger said:

There are more than enough posts from puzzled tenants on here and other related sites asking "but why are we being evicted, we've complied with the contract, paid rent in full & on time, done nothing wrong"... or similar wording..

the landlord is able to end the agreement on a "no fault" basis, even if the tenant hasn't done anything wrong. 

Of course, in the interests of balance, the tenant can similarly end the agreement even if the landlord hasn't done anything wrong...