You are probably right that the LAs are !!!!ed off and we should keep on their good side. Does the fact we cannot get in touch with the landlady harm our chances of using that approach?
Quite the reverse, I would say. I am assuming that the agents are basically motivated by money. They will want you to remain as tenants because that means they get paid by your landlady and all they have to do is print off another set of paperwork. I would expect that they would be quite understanding if you were to tell them that you wanted to get the s21 notice invalidated, because then you would be able to stay and they would get paid for doing nothing.
If you decide to leave, then they will have empty house that they can't rent out without instructions from the landlady. Even if she decides that she does want to rent it out again (and gets in touch with them), then the agents will have to work a lot harder to earn their money.
Ok guys, what's the score now on adv. vs disadv.?
In your contract, there should be a section called something like "Interpretations and definitions". Does it say in that section that any notices may be given either by the agent or landlord?.?
Also, throughout the contract, does it say "either agent or landlord". If it does, then I contend that the S21 notice is not being enforced by reason of the letter they sent to you. It may even have been invalidated.
Periodic. No questions, the initial period has ended, there is no change to the agreement therefore it becomes periodic. I don't think anyone would try to argue otherwise.
But they can walk out at the end of the AST anyway.
Probably not sign the tenancy agreement myself or not hand it over, therefore no contract.
If it has got past that point, send an S21 shortly afterwards, as suggested by others, or use a process server if it came to it.
That's why I made the comment earlier about "a legal necessity to cover me (the landlord) if I needed to get them out at a later date". I also used to make it clear that if I had no problems with them (the tenant(s)) I would be happy for them to stay on. There needs to be communication between the landlord and tenant otherwise one side or the other will make assumptions and one side or the other will end the tenancy when it is unexpected by the other.
I'm not, so what's wrong with issuing it at month 0 instead of month 4? I can still issue it at month 4 and not enforce it too, so what's your point?
I suggest that a court would take the landlord's actions as a sign of their intentions, as that will be all they can go on. No action would indicate that they do not intend to enforce the S21, court action for possession would indicate the opposite. I can see what people are arguing on here, and it would, I think, be possible to make a case out that if a landlord doesn't enforce an S21 within a reasonable time (that's so English Law isn't it?) that it should be considered that the S21 has lapsed. But, as I have already pointed out, there is currently no time limit on S21s.
They then put "Date of Expiry: From 10th March 2007"
Then it is signed (it doesn't state who has signed it and the signature is not the same as the one the contract, nor does the signiture resemble my landlady's name). It then puts the letting agents address.
There’s a trick to extend them
We want to hear from you
This week's MSE Forum highlights