Section 21 Notices

[james.cole]

Hi,

I rented my property to a ex girlfriend of a mate. Served her over 6 months ago now and the tenancy agreement ended at the end of last month. She wants to vacate the property but has been told by the local council to stay there until evicted or they won't help her. I understand that I can now start the eviction process but am I able to serve a Section 21 notice on her if I didn't take a deposit from her?

I know you cannot serve a Section 21 if you did not put the deposit into the scheme, but does that still count if no deposit ever exchanged hands?

[jpkeates]

If there's no deposit, you can serve a s21 with at least that worry out of the way.

You need to check that the tenant's expectations are in line with reality.
The council have no obligation to give emergency support to someone who deliberately makes themselves homeless, but that's an overnight BnB level of support.
Her chances of getting social housing are almost nil.

So I'm not entirely sure what she's expecting from the council.

[james.cole]

Thanks jpkeates

[AndrewDod]

Do the council also expect her to resist eviction in every possible way - i.e. submit a defence to the S21 no matter what the merits, say that a gas certificate was not received, claim that PI was not received and that a deposit was in fact paid, and then refuse to go until the bailiffs arrive - and remove her shackles.

At what point does it become not "intentional"?

Maybe at some point the people who pay for these games and for the handouts will rebel. Or maybe they are already.

[jpkeates]

The local authority are ignoring the policy sent to them by central government, which says they have to act when the tenant is served notice.

What they do is say the notice may not be valid, and they use the court system to test if it is or not.
That costs the tenant £308 if they lose - which they will eventually.

After that the local authority will typically act, so the waiting for the bailiffs is a bit dramatic.

1/5 of landlord possession claims don't result in a possession order, for one reason or another.
I'd guess it's usually a procedural issue (but am 100% guessing there).
So the local authority are hoping that the tenant will be in the 1/5, thereby saving the tax payer some money.

[AndrewDod]

But in any reasonable judicial system (if we still have one) it is up to the defendant to mount a defence, and if the defendant denies that there is a defence by what right does any judge have to put a defence into the mouth of anyone. The Council have no standing.

It should be simple - application - no defence I agree - judgement (which should not come to court in the first place, including the application).
The T is in breach of contract once notice is expired and they don't leave. We just have a safeguard which says that if T resists a court has to put the final stamp. We have transmuted this to mean that an actual court hearing is part of the normal procedure of contract termination.

What a load of hogwash

[jpkeates]

But in any reasonable judicial system (if we still have one) it is up to the defendant to mount a defence, and if the defendant denies that there is a defence by what right does any judge have to put a defence into the mouth of anyone. The Council have no standing.

The court basically checks that the forms are filled in correctly.
There should be no hearing in most accelerated claims if the documents are right.

Councils encourage tenants to raise a defence.

The tenant is not in breach of contract once notice is expired and they don't leave.
Legislation says that the tenant doesn't have to leave and no contract can overturn that.

[AndrewDod]

The court basically checks that the forms are filled in correctly.
There should be no hearing in most accelerated claims if the documents are right.

Where else in the judicial system can a defendant file no defence or indeed state "everything the claimant says is correct" (even if it isn't) and still "win" (even if they don't want to)

The tenant is not in breach of contract once notice is expired and they don't leave.
Legislation says that the tenant doesn't have to leave and no contract can overturn that.

Is that actually true? You could say the same about landlord right to enter for example.
If AST says "I may enter the property under x circumstances"
X arises
Tenant refuses entry
The fact is that T is simultaneously in breach of contract BUT L has no means of enforcing correction of the breach other than via a court

If the contract said L has to give 2 weeks notice to enter L would still have to go to court (but only after 2 weeks) - but the contractual term woiuld still be a valid term.

I don't think it is the case that T is not in breach

Likewise for departing -- the law is not overriding the contract, I think it is simply creating a mechanism to deal with the contract.

I don't think it is the same as (say) a contract stating in a contract that T has to give 3 months notice during periodic tenancy - because that is overwritten by legislation.

Indeed that is surely exactly why the tenant has to pay the costs of the hearing

[ChrisDennison]

AndrewDod I'm thinking more and more that maybe being a landlord isn't the right profession for you? Can you write a single post that doesn't somehow bemoan how bad the current situation is? I mean, get a life and enjoy it, it's all just a game in the end and misery isn't a good companion

[Jon66]

AndrewDod the issue is with Parliament not the courts. Parliament make the laws, the court merely attempts to uphold the law.

[AndrewDod]

AndrewDod the issue is with Parliament not the courts. Parliament make the laws, the court merely attempts to uphold the law.

Not really sure what that has to do with the issue one way or the other

[AndrewDod]

AndrewDod I'm thinking more and more that maybe being a landlord isn't the right profession for you? Can you write a single post that doesn't somehow bemoan how bad the current situation is? I mean, get a life and enjoy it, it's all just a game in the end and misery isn't a good companion

Possibly not - not a suitable activity for any law abiding decent people who want to inhabit anything other than a Kafkarian universe of random laws and random punishments,
and who are compelled to offer an increasingly terrible service to customers
I guess...

But some, perhaps you, benefit from abusive systems

Which is why the good folk are exiting
to be replaced by a mix of bad folk
and fools

[Jon66]

Not really sure what that has to do with the issue one way or the other

"Where else in the judicial system can a defendant file no defence or indeed state "everything the claimant says is correct" (even if it isn't) and still "win" (even if they don't want to)"

[AndrewDod]

"Where else in the judicial system can a defendant file no defence or indeed state "everything the claimant says is correct" (even if it isn't) and still "win" (even if they don't want to)"

Yes. So where else in the judicial system is that the case? I wasn't apportioning blame between parliament and the courts - I was simply point out a fact. So still unclear as to what you think is not correct...

[ChrisDennison]

But some, perhaps you, benefit from abusive systems

Ouch.

Which is why the good folk are exiting
to be replaced by a mix of bad folk
and fools

Ah well you saved yourself with the last sentence - I’ve been a landlord for many a years so I must be one of the good folk then. Phew!