Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

by Readers Question

12:17 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

Make Text Bigger
Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

My letting agent served a section 21 notice soon after the tenant moved in, but only told him verbally a few months before the date on it, that he needed to be finding somewhere else to move to – rather than sending him a letter requiring possession! Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

Would I be right in thinking that if the tenants doesn’t go, and he is now past that date, and says he hasn’t seen anwhere else he likes (and gets some income support!) that that section 21 is worth diddly squat!

Thanks

Juliet

Comments

David Sweeney

20:30 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

#Juliet You are looking at at least 6 weeks after the expiry of the contract before you get a possession date. Even then, tenant does not have to go, you need to employ bailiffs to enforce the possession order. This can take 2-12 weeks if you use the county court bailiffs (expect 6). The High Court is quicker but much more expensive.

If you took a deposit, once the 'statutory periodic' tenancy begins, you have 30 days to re-serve the 'prescribed information' as this is a brand new tenancy.

#Steve As Romain says, the service of a section 21 notice, nor the commencement of court action has o affect whatsoever on the tenancy. It remains as valid as the day it began.

juliet bonnet

21:44 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "12/08/2013 - 20:30":

Hi Dave,
You are scaring me! So,you are saying that because he hasn't moved out before the date on the section 21 and tenancy term, this has by default become periodic, and thus a completely new tenancy which will need the initial deposit re-protecting,and the 'proscribed information' re-issued?!!
WTF!

Mark Alexander

21:50 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "juliet bonnet" at "12/08/2013 - 21:44":

Juliet, you need to visit this website more, I'm sorry to hear that you are scared but better to learn now. Please see >>> http://www.property118.com/guidance-from-deposit-protection-schemes-following-the-supertrike-case/41942/
.

David Sweeney

21:52 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "juliet bonnet" at "12/08/2013 - 21:44":
The deposit doesn't need re-protecting (unless your particular scheme says so) but the recent 'superstrike' case confirmed the situation that a SPT is a NEW tenancy and that any deposit paid for the initial tenancy is now a new deposit (although it may have never left the landlords possession). Therefore PI does need re-providing

juliet bonnet

21:54 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 21:50":

Will do Mark. I am a 'Newbie' here.
Thanks for everyone's guidance.

juliet bonnet

22:15 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "12/08/2013 - 21:52":

Dave, Surely any sensible judge on seeing that the AST was just for 6 months, that the section 21 was served very shortly after, and appropriate application paperwork to the courts starting just a few weeks after that - would find it obvious that this 'periodic' tenancy was not a new one. From what I have read, it would seem there might be some room for discretion?

Mark Alexander

22:19 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Juliet, if you follow the guidance I linked you to then you should be OK.
.

David Sweeney

22:26 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "juliet bonnet" at "12/08/2013 - 22:15":

No Juliet, it is a new one and always has been a new one. The higher court judges have determined how that affects tenancy deposits and lower court judges have to abide by that decisio

Mark Alexander

22:31 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

That's not strictly true Is it Dave? The Superstrike Court of Appeal case only focused on the right to obtain possession and under very specific circumstances. Everything else is implied consequence and speculation which has created mass panic from which I am personally not immune.
.

juliet bonnet

22:53 PM, 12th August 2013
About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 22:31":
I am inclined to agree with you Mark. Re-reading the joint advice issued by the TPA's I have copied the words below:
"It is worth noting that the information included in the following pages has not been tested in law, and does not
constitute advice, as we cannot possibly know how a court would rule in untested circumstances.
It is also important to remember that this appellate decision could be further challenged and perhaps even over
ruled by the Supreme Court".
However, It looks like it would be better to return his deposit to him, as if I re-protect it he might feel more entitled to stay! Especially as his understanding of English is a bit iffy!

1 2 3 4

Leave Comments

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

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER

Portfolio Landlords: Now is the time to sell your properties for the best price