Is 'issuing proceedings' too aggressive, in this case?

[MdeB]

They are rented out by way of SAT (12 month period)

What is SAT?

[DPT57]

Not a lot of point paying a solicitor and then not taking his advice, but I agree with your stance on this. Perhaps you could issue a s21 to expire in Oct and then if they don't go you can follow the solicitors advice.

[inthelandlordzone]

Hi group,

I am seeking repossession of a couple of independent units/flats in my house, ( i live in a separate unit in the same house) prior to putting up the whole property for sale in the autumn.

They are rented out by way of SAT (12 month period)

I have engaged a solicitor who's undertaking the process ....while this is probably strictly unnecessary for such a process, I had engaged him in an advisory role anyway to ensure i comply property with various HMO licence regs etc which i believe i have now complied with sufficiently to issue s21 - that's a separate side issue which i don't think is central to the question i'm raising here - but suffice it to say, the solicitor is also dealing with gaining repossession process (letters etc)

I have chatted to both tenants, and have been happy to find that the general feel and 'vibe' is good - both are somewhat appreciative of my past record as their landlord, and are at least appreciative that i have verbally agreed an actual departure / repossession date in the Oct (rather than the faster two month period which technically can apply), and they appear to understand/accept my reason for not renewing (sale of property), etc

So the idea is to issue notice, S21, but (by verbal / general agreement) not actually repossess til oct.

[At this point, can i ask please for readers be understanding of my low level of general legal naus/understanding on this whole subject - I'm not really a 'professional landlord' or property investor...it\s more a case of having undertaken to rent excess space in my sole property, albeit via separate units, again, HMO compliance is NOT actually the theme i'm discussing here]

What i'm currently a bit unsettled by, however, is the solicitor's advice to 'issue proceedings' - which, i guess, means he's covering for the eventuality of getting a court date/bailiffs, etc in the event of non-departure, or tenants going to court.

As explained, my intuitive feeling based on conversation, the general feel of things, is that this really isn't the direction things are likely to go (good tenant relations, a reserve of apparent goodwill, a longish agreed time period, the fact that one of them is planning to buy her own place now anyway, etc)

I'd be interested to know if, in the opinion of any members with more experience and understanding of these matters, whether 'issuing proceedings' is over the top, or perhaps potentially counterproductive (not sure i'd like to receive a letter referring to court proceedings etc in this circumstance).
Also, i suppose, if the 'invitation' (by way of 'issuing proceedings') to go on this possibly-more-confrontational-than-necessary approach is there, there are always (potentially) more problematic ways the tenants could chose to do things, especially if they get counter legal advice on their own part.

Do you think the solicitor (who probably is more frequently employed to boot out 'problem tenants'), is either pursuing an unnecessary approach, or conceivably, actually steering things towards court, because...that's 'what he does' (and charges for) i.e. represents people in court.

Bit worried

thanks for any views.

.