Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

Will my Letting Agents Section 21 be valid?

12:17 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago 33

Text Size

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

by David Sweeney

22:56 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 22:31":

Actually, I have to agree with Mark in slapping my wrist

by David Sweeney

23:02 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "12/08/2013 - 22:56":

Please see my last comment regarding 'superstrike'

You seem to have protected the deposit through the whole tenancy, and presumably, at the time the s21 was served the prescribed information had been served? Meaning the s21 is valid. Now it may indeed be wise to re-issue the prescribed information but I can not see the need to refund the deposi

by Mark Alexander

23:05 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "12/08/2013 - 23:02":

Providing the AST only became SPT within the last 30 days I agree with Dave.
.

by David Sweeney

23:09 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 23:05":

Why 30 days Mark?

by Mark Alexander

23:15 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Within 30 days and you are totally safe, after 30 days the recommendations of the deposit schemes are also to return the deposit to ensure the s.21 can't be challenged on the basis of failing to re-issue within the period referred to in the localism act. It's not confirmed in case law but best to be certain in such instances.
.

by Romain Garcin

23:30 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Most schemes do not require re-protecting the deposit when a SPT is created. If that's the case for juliet then she's fine on that front.
As for giving PI to tenant again, that's a point of debate following the recent Superstrike case. To be on the safe side the advice is to give them again to tenant. However, presumably here s.21 notice was served during fixed term tenancy after PI were given, as suggested by Dave.
In any case, note that if deposit was protected but PI not given, just giving the PI, even late, would allow serving a valid s.21 notice.

All in all, I would start court proceedings after having checked that all was fine when s.21 notice was served, and would not refund deposit at the moment, as also suggested by Dave.

by David Sweeney

23:36 PM, 12th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 23:15":

Makes sense, in so far as the deposit Co's should know what they are talking about, but when that info was put out by TDS etc, their t&cs were still that an SPT would be protected if the preceding fixed term was protected (don't know if it still is). That's s215(1) dealt with. 213(1) specifically states the deposit "be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme", ie the schemes t&cs count.

s215(2) renders a s21 invalid if PI isn't served (specifically) *before* it is given It makes no requirement that the PI still be current at the time of application to the court, presumably because the legislators didn't believe it could become un-current other than a new fixed term contract, which would require a new s21 by default.

In this instance, I am assuming the deposit protection was properly dealt with by the agent prior to s21 service so s215(2) should be ok, but I suggest in my last post that it would be wise to re-issue the PI simply in case a judge ask

by juliet bonnet

0:07 AM, 13th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Reaney" at "12/08/2013 - 23:36":

Hi Guys,
As far as I know he did serve PI. Will find out asap.

by Antony Richards

9:12 AM, 13th August 2013, About 8 years ago

This does create an interesting scenario in that if a tenant does not vacate at the end of a fixed term after the correct service of S21, should the deposit be 're-protected' etc?

by Steve Masters

10:14 AM, 13th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Antony Richards" at "13/08/2013 - 09:12":

Going back to my earlier comment about rent collection, my under standing is:

If rent is still collected in ADVANCE then LL has struck a new agreement with T that he can stay on for a further period the rent in advance has covered, this is in effect agreeing to the tenancy rolling over into SPT therefore requiring PI to be re-served AND negating the s21 (or s8 etc.).
I
f rent is collected in ARREARS after the notice expires then the LL is NOT agreeing to the term of the tenancy continuing, the original AST is still in force and the tenant is staying without permission beyond the agreed term. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Steve.


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