Notice Requiring Possession

Debt_Free_Chick

CYBERCIDERSAVER wrote: »

So if you are served one of these things at the beginning of your 6 month AST then am I right in thinkng you would not have to give notice if you left at the end of the 6 months??:question:

Yes, that's right. The s21 notice is the LL serving notice to the tenant.

If that's right then if I ever get served one I will do just that. Make noises like I wanna stay but the day that the 6 months ends, I'll be living somewhere else. Leaving LL no tenant for at least a month.:rotfl:

If the LL has served a s21 at the beginning, then he's likely to have a "plan B" for this eventuality. He'll either be asking you to sign a new agreement, to run from the expiry date of the old one ... or he'll be talking to another potential tenant. Remember ... you can market a property as being available; get new tenants interested - and then, if you sign a new agreement, the LL will simply tell the other interested tenants that the property's gone

It is a !!!!!! way to treat people and more people should take a stand against it by either not renting houses with these stupid things attached or the above.

It's just business. The LL is protecting his own interests, as we should expect.

(And before I get any flaming - from anyone - for being a bad, inconsiderated and cruel LL .... I'm not. I'm a tenant)

franklee

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

It's just business. The LL is protecting his own interests, as we should expect.

The Sword of Damocles doesn't really do that as the S21 can't ask a tenant to leave before the fixed term expires. Thus, if the fixed term is six months, the landlord has up to four months to decide if he wants the tenant is to leave and serve the S21 and still get the tenant out at the earliest possible date a S21 allows.

If the landlord wants the tenant to remain then he really needs to let the tenant know by the end of the fourth month so that the tenant doesn't start arranging to move. Otherwise the previously served S21 is a liability as the tenant may think the landlord does want him to leave.

So with or without the already served S21 the landlord has four months to make his mind up about if he wants the tenant to leave or not such that it makes no difference to the earliest date to request possession using a S21.

If the tenant is obviously bad from early on then the landlord can use a Section 8 notice to get possession which can get the tenant to leave during the fixed term and so will be quicker than the S21 which can't expire till the end of the fixed term.

So there really is no reason for the routine serving of the S21 which is really only effective if the tenant doesn't realise it's been served so doesn't ask about staying on and if the landlord decides after the end of month four that he wants the tenant to leave after all. In that case the landlord is able to remind the tenant about the S21 less than two months before he wants the tenant to leave. It that worth it for the downside of the S21 unsettling the tenant? If the tenant turns out to be good then having asked them to leave isn't the best business plan ... and a tenant who understands the Sword of Damocles may not much care for the uncertainty it creates so it can sour the landlord/tenant relationship.

To sum up the Sword of Damocles really only works if the tenant doesn't realise what's happening and then it can reduce the "effective notice" the tenant is given from two months down to a minimum of nothing at all. If the tenant twigs what's going on then he can make sure he's given permission to remain in good time such that he has his two months to arrange moving should things fall through assuming he wants to remain with a SoDing landlord at all.

franklee

chocolatechipcookies wrote: »

You don't HAVE to resign at all when your 6 months comes up. Of course you will pay an admin fee, paperwork takes time.

If there was no S21 then there would be the option of the tenant remaining on a periodic tenancy after the fixed term is over and then no further paperwork would be needed.

As there is an S21 the tenant is forced into signing a new AST should they want to stay. A tenant should not remain on a periodic tenancy with the S21 in place as that means they can then be asked to leave anytime without further notice as the S21 was their notice.

An alternative is for the landlord/agent to write a letter to the tenant withdrawing the S21, if that happened the tenant is OK to remain on a periodic tenancy. But that still involves paperwork for which there will probably be a charge.

Debt_Free_Chick

franklee wrote: »

The Sword of Damocles doesn't really do that as the S21 can't ask a tenant to leave before the fixed term expires. Thus, if the fixed term is six months, the landlord has up to four months to decide if he wants the tenant is to leave and serve the S21 and still get the tenant out at the earliest possible date a S21 allows.

If the landlord wants the tenant to remain then he really needs to let the tenant know by the end of the fourth month so that the tenant doesn't start arranging to move. Otherwise the previously served S21 is a liability as the tenant may think the landlord does want him to leave.

So with or without the already served S21 the landlord has four months to make his mind up about if he wants the tenant to leave or not such that it makes no difference to the earliest date to request possession using a S21.

If the tenant is obviously bad from early on then the landlord can use a Section 8 notice to get possession which can get the tenant to leave during the fixed term and so will be quicker than the S21 which can't expire till the end of the fixed term.

So there really is no reason for the routine serving of the S21 which is really only effective if the tenant doesn't realise it's been served so doesn't ask about staying on and if the landlord decides after the end of month four that he wants the tenant to leave after all. In that case the landlord is able to remind the tenant about the S21 less than two months before he wants the tenant to leave. It that worth it for the downside of the S21 unsettling the tenant? If the tenant turns out to be good then having asked them to leave isn't the best business plan ... and a tenant who understands the Sword of Damocles may not much care for the uncertainty it creates so it can sour the landlord/tenant relationship.

To sum up the Sword of Damocles really only works if the tenant doesn't realise what's happening and then it can reduce the "effective notice" the tenant is given from two months down to a minimum of nothing at all. If the tenant twigs what's going on then he can make sure he's given permission to remain in good time such that he has his two months to arrange moving should things fall through assuming he wants to remain with a SoDing landlord at all.

Agree with all of your points. I just think that the SoD is a "lazy" option for those LLs and/or LAs who can't operate an efficient diary system! Rather than taking a tenant on and giving them (just short of) four months "grace", they issue the s21 upfront "just in case" they turn out to be bad tenants.

In my experience (and I'm not a LL!) the only "bad" tenants are those that don't pay the rent. And they can be removed by a s8 notice anyway (provided they are two months in arrears). Tenants that pay their rent on time are less of an issue. They might be a PITA with regards to maintenance issues, but they are so often right. But some LLs use the SoD to ride rough-shod over savvy tenants who are simply trying to get the LL to fulfill their contractual obligations. In this case, I have no sympathy for the LL .... but if the SoD has been served, it's an easy way out :mad:

On principle, if I were served a SoD on the day the tenancy started, I would be looking for a property to rent as soon as the fixed period expired. After all .... it's just business :rotfl:

Rabiddog_2

would be looking for a property to rent as soon as the fixed period expired.

It would make sense to look for the month beforehand too.

Debt_Free_Chick

Rabiddog wrote: »

It would make sense to look for the month beforehand too.

Sorry - that's what I meant. I would simply be in a position to move out at the end as I would already have found another property to move in to.