Eviction notice

dazco

Thank you very much. You really are a most helpful chap.

Thanks again:T

moneysavinmonkey

I would proceed with caution dazco:

there is nothing to say that a section 21 notice can not also contain a section 48 notice... just as the tenancy agreement can contain the section 48 notice.

you have been served with a notice telling you who your landlord is and how to contact them - that is all a section 48 is. you provided the link yourself that says it doesn't have to be in any particular format.

Just because subjectocontract is saying what you want to hear doesn't mean it is right.

I'm sorry to keep being the bearer of bad news but i'd hate for you to act on bad advice (or anyone else reading this thread.) The worst outcome possible is that you and your child get turfed out before you are ready and then end up having to pay the legal costs of this 'big cooperation' in a misguided lawsuit.

moneysavinmonkey

subjecttocontract wrote: »

No.

A Section 21 & a Section 48 notice are different.

The section 21 you have been served with is meaningless as you have not been served a notice (section 48) to advise you who your new landlord is & where they can be contacted.

Yes a Section 21 + a Section 48 are different
but please show why they can't both be contained within the same notice.

This is very important for the OP so it's important to qualify your statement.

RabbitMad

Reading back through your posts I don't think your LL needs to give you a section 48 notice as the AST from 5 years ago would have contained the relevant info and your landlord hasn't changed. It is still xxx ltd. xxx ltd is now a wholely owned subsiduary of yyy ltd but that makes no difference to
you.

I'm happy to be proved wrong

subjecttocontract

Its going to be difficult & time consuming for everyone to provide you with a definitive answer to all the questions.

I would NEVER rely on an internet chatboard to provide me with information thnat is really REALLY important to me...I would only use it as a guide.

The best advice I can offer you is to take what you have learned here over the last few days along to the Citizens Advice Bureaux. They will provide you with information and even the services of a solicitor if necessary. It wuill take a few hours of your time but you will at least be able to move forward.

Good Luck.

dazco

RabbitMad wrote: »

Reading back through your posts I don't think your LL needs to give you a section 48 notice as the AST from 5 years ago would have contained the relevant info and your landlord hasn't changed. It is still xxx ltd. xxx ltd is now a wholely owned subsiduary of yyy ltd but that makes no difference to
you.

I'm happy to be proved wrong

The company I rented it from first, is still in existance.

The company who now my landlords are a different company altogether.

Thanks for all the recents posts, you all have valid points. I think I shall aim to be out of here for April 30th, and if the section 48 point is valid, use the house as a big scalextric track or something:D

Mrs_pbradley936

Phirefly wrote: »

Heheh. *Phirefly gets mental image of virtual dungeon where lost mse souls roam infinitely, emerging blinking into the daylight only to ask advice of the sage property board members*

No, no the Arms and Discussion Time are places where we exchange views about lots of things. dazco, Vick and I meet there regularly. You get some clever people on there but also the opposite and when dazco asked about his situation there I suggested he ask on here. I got to know people on here via the Eagerlearner saga (that was a young couple who had nightmare issues with their landlady). “Downstairs” you are likely to get your leg pulled or for people to tell you what they think which is not always above-board or desirable.

Mrs_pbradley936

jamesd wrote: »

Mrs pbradley936, just so you know, the text you quoted applies to the owner of a lease (99 year flat lease sort of thing) getting an eviction notice from the freeholder of the property they purchased the lease to. It's not applicable to the sort of tenancies people are normally talking about.

Yes, I know that now, but when I first started with this I assumed that it could not have been an AST because the OP really has no case if that were so. Plus he said that it was an eviction notice and it turns out to be a notice seeking re-possession (i.e. not issued by the Court at all).

clutton_2

Op says in his first post

""have been served an eviction order but they have spelt my first name wrong.

The eviction order is from a solicitor, not a court"

so obviously it is not from a court ..................... Daz has not clearly reproduced what the letter says, so, we have al assumed it to be a Section 21 Notice - which is the landlords intention to apply for repossession.

when you only get half the story it makes advice immeasurably difficult to offer.......

dazco

clutton wrote: »

Op says in his first post

""have been served an eviction order but they have spelt my first name wrong.

The eviction order is from a solicitor, not a court"

so obviously it is not from a court ..................... Daz has not clearly reproduced what the letter says, so, we have al assumed it to be a Section 21 Notice - which is the landlords intention to apply for repossession.

when you only get half the story it makes advice immeasurably difficult to offer.......

Which half did I miss, and I shall let you know now.