Never received section 21

by Readers Question

15:53 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Never received section 21

Make Text Bigger
Never received section 21

Never received section 21My landlord sent me a letter on the 28th May saying my tenancy comes to an end on the 17th June and therefore someone would be coming to do a checkout.

I was totally shocked as I have been living at the property for 3 years and have always paid my rent in advance. I was expecting a new tenancy agreement as my tenancy runs out on the 11th June.

When I contacted the letting agent saying they couldnt just give me notice of 18 days I was told a section 21 had been served on me on the 15th April and it had been hand delivered. I explained I had not received any such notice and as I have CCTV I asked what time it had been delivered. I had the CCTV checked it and no way had the notice been put in the door!

The reply I got was how do you expect me to remember something I did two months ago.

I’m wondering is there anything I can do as I just cannot find somewhere suitable in 18 days.

I think the are doing it as I complained about a few repairs after the flat was burgled at Christmas and it took them 4 months to come and fix the broken windows and doors.



Share this article

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn


Mark Alexander

15:59 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Hi Karen

They can't gain possession or even enter your property if you refuse permission without a Court order.

As soon as they try to obtain one just tell the Court everything you have said above. The burden of proof of service of the Section 21 notice is on them. It is not up to you to prove they didn't issue it as it is impossible to prove a negative.

I advise you to go and see Citizens Advice and Shelter.

Good luck and don't be intimidated. If they continue to put pressure on by all means come back here and tell us what's going on and we will be happy to give you further advice.

Gary Nock

16:20 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

And when they issued you with a new tenancy agreement did they reissue the deposit protection papers? If not they cannot use Section 21.

Roy and Tania

16:28 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago


Mark is spot on here. The burden of proof is on them (the LL and LA) to prove that the section 21 was served. A statement that one was hand-delivered will not wash with a judge and any proceedings via a court will be dismissed.

However - a second section 21 will then be served correctly (one assumes) and that ordinarily would be accepted by a court. There is a condition though to this....

that your deposit was protected in a DPS scheme and that you received various paperwork (certificate and prescribed information) in relation to that. It sounds like the LL/LA knows little of their obligations and it might be that you do not have this information concerning the deposit or that the deposit is indeed protected at all..

If that is the case, a second section 21 will fail also.

There is also a potential 3x penalty for non-protection.

Ultimately the deposit can be repaid by the LL and an s21 will then become valid and you will at some point have to vacate. As Mark said - stand firm. Most of these bad LL/LA's end up in court trying to defend their position and end having to pay considerable compensation etc to their tenants.

There might also be a disrepair claim and a defence that the s21 (s) are retaliatory. This practice is frowned upon in the courts.

Not sure of your location. We're in the NE and had a fabulous solicitor and barrister fight for us in a nasty case this spring. LL ordered to compensate by £10k+ and nice £7.5k from LA. Mark will share contact details if you'd like to be put in contact in the first instance.

Romain Garcin

16:37 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Roy and Tania" at "05/06/2014 - 16:28":

"There might also be a disrepair claim and a defence that the s21 (s) are retaliatory. This practice is frowned upon in the courts."

I don't know what the courts think about that practice, but it doesn't really matter since they cannot do anything about it:
Claiming that the s.21 notice is retaliatory or even that the property is in disrepair are not valid defences against a claim for possession through s.21.

Only things that matter are the dates and the deposit.

Amanda Hardy

16:42 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "05/06/2014 - 16:20":

Please remember that if you are using the government scheme, DPS, you do not need to reissue the deposit certificate as this is not a requirement when the renewal is done with this scheme

Roy and Tania

17:06 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "05/06/2014 - 16:37":

I wasn't referring to disrepair as a defence - but as an independent claim to be actioned alongside (or slightly ahead of) any eviction case, along with any 3x penalty, retaliatory s21(s) might ratchet up the damages also.

all might be settled at the eviction hearing. ours was!

Gary Nock

19:27 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Amanda Hardy" at "05/06/2014 - 16:42":

I am puzzled by this. It is a new tenancy. Does not Superstrike apply to DPS as well as every other scheme? Where does it state this please?

Romain Garcin

19:34 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "05/06/2014 - 19:27":

The subtlety is that the legal requirement re. deposit protection is in fact to just comply with the scheme's "initial requirements" when a deposit is received in relation to an AST (statute's wording).
Therefore while Superstrike clarified what "receiving a deposit" means in a given scenario, what must then be done is really up to the scheme.
I believe that DPS does not require the landlord to do anything so the landlord really just ought to give the PI again (deposit certificate is _not_ part of the PI as far as I can tell).

Gary Nock

19:51 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Thanks Romain. I do reissue PI after 6 months on a 6 month AST. Although I think its bureaucracy gone mad. If I do not need to do it then I would prefer not to.

Romain Garcin

20:00 PM, 5th June 2014
About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "05/06/2014 - 19:51":

I'm afraid you do need to re-issue the PI, indeed.
Superstrike does not mention it but the wording of the statute it ruled on is the same as the wording regarding PI and it seems that tenants have already successfully claimed the non-compliance penalty just because the PI were not re-issued.
So better save than sorry for the sake of just a few pages.

1 2

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?



Could your buy-to-let company share structure be better?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More