How to serve a Section 21 notice when tenancy is in two names but one tenant has left?

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 17/10/2025 – 19:01

Respectfully disagree. If you see a solicitor make sure they are SPECIALIST L&T practitioners, not High Street tabbies.

Assuming England.

When the tenant that left gave notice to quit, were they in a fixed term or periodic? And was it a proper notice to end the tenancy or just a “I’m leaving now”.

In a periodic tenancy, any tenant can give notice. This ends the tenancy for all tenants.

If you then continue to accept rent (instead of mensi profits) from the remaining tenant, instead going to court for a possession order. Then you created a new statuatory periodic tenancy for that one tenant only.

Yes, England and it was periodic. Just an email saying she was leaving in 6 days. I replied saying thanks for letting me know and good luck. Full rent contained to be paid by remaining tenant till a few months s ago. I’m not interested in chasing her for rent but just trying to establish if notice needs to be in both names and how to serve if it needs to be both. I only have her email address and tenancy doesn’t list email as method of service. Remaining tenant now not communicating with me.

It’s tricky, because you don’t care about the other tenant, and are happy to treat it as a single tenancy, but In my opinion. You should still name both tenants.

That’s because 6 days notice is not sufficient, it’s at least 1 full rental period by default, unless you agree a shorter notice. So technically it’s invalid, only if it was valid could the tenant provide unilateral notice to quit. You confirmed receipt of the email, but never explicitly accepted the shorter notice, so it never had any effect.

This means the tenancy continued as a joint tenancy.

Furthermore if you took a deposit, a change in tenants, or the ending of the original and starting of a new one with one remaining tenant, would mean you would need to reprotect and issue the prescribed information within 30 days of the change. Failure to do so would lead to 1-3x compensation.

If you never reprotected the deposit, then pretending this is a single tenancy opens you up to an unprotected deposit claim.

Even if it’s chased as a joint tenancy, you can choose not to chase the other tenant for any arrears.

As an FYI, if the tenant that left, was to give valid notice again, this would end the tenancy for both of them. An s21 would not be needed as the tenancy is over, no AST exists. You still need a possession order, but no s8/s21 is needed. You can also charge mensi profits (double rent) under the distress of rent act 1737 to any ex-tenant that remains in occupation.

It’s a case of choosing not to chase other tenant who’s unlikely to pay anyway. Hoping deposit is ok if conclusion is joint tenancy continued and I need to name both. As an aside I followed deposit instructions and it allowed me name one (the remaining one) as lead tenant. Only his name is shown on deposit details.

Reply to the comment left by Frank Mastrandrea at 20/10/2025 – 09:15
It sounds like you updated the deposit scheme to release the other tenant. You are still required to reissue the prescribed information due to a material change. You cannot rely on the scheme notifying the tenant. However at this point, it’s not worth drawing attention to it, the damage is done and the tenant could issue an unprotected deposit claim it you didn’t reissue the prescribed information.

https://custodial.tenancydepositscheme.com/news/blog/asktds-does-the-deposit-need-to-be-re-protected-when-the/

I didn’t update, terms allowed me to name lead tenant when they first moved in. Therefore if it’s still joint tenancy should be ok since nothing has changed?

Reply to the comment left by Frank Mastrandrea at 20/10/2025 – 09:42
Then I misunderstood you. I thought you removed the tenant that left from the deposit. Naming/changing a lead tenant doesn’t make any difference, that’s just something the scheme uses so that when a dispute arises they deal with just 1 tenant and for repayment of the deposit it all goes to the lead tenant.

If the protected deposit still names both tenants, then it’s still protected, and no new prescribed information is required. As the tenancy is still joint based on what you have stated.

It would be different if the other tenant had given the required 1 rental period of notice, or you clearly accepted an early surrender. As a new tenancy would form and a new deposit protection would be required, in the remaining tenants name only.

So I would proceed with s21 in both names.

Thanks what are your thoughts about s21 v S8? So far he has paid not later than one month late so I think S8 could only be on discretionary grounds. Thinking of issuing both in case S8 fails. Alternatively I could wait till it’s 2 months for S8 when it becomes mandatory grounds. Also when does it become 2 months arrears, would it be when he misses second payment (one month plus one day) or must 2 months have elapsed.

Reply to the comment left by Frank Mastrandrea at 20/10/2025 – 12:49
Start with s21, since it’s fairly pointless to begin s8 using discretionary grounds.

If enough rent arrears has met the threshold, you can decide to issue s8 ground 8 (arrears) and ground 11 (persistent late rent payment).

You always use both because ground 8 can be avoided if they pay just enough rent to bring the arrears under 2 months by the date of the court hearing, then you rely on ground 11 on the day of the hearing.