Tenant is asking that we issue a section 21 to her ???

[jpkeates]

Almost none of what AndrewDod suggested would be legal.
But what the tenant is trying is very close to a fraud.

Which is why, I suspect, Mr Dod responded as he did.

[Jon66]

i wouldnt call suggesting a way with extreme requirements in order to collude with the tenant to obtain social housing as spot on. not asking for thousands of £ mid tenancy, that isnt due, is hardly being a charity is it, infact by demanding that and no contest to deposit claims id probably call it extortion.

Irony isn't your forte then?

[Lawcruncher]

Explain that you will issue the S21 if she agrees to sign a form accepting that all other aspects of the paperwork are properly received (PI, gas, EPC etc), pays 6 ,months of rent in advance, and agrees not to defend the S21 in any way, or defend any aspect of the deposit return (xyz) following an inspection you will carry out in advance of the tenancy ending. You will of course refund any excess advance rent once the tenancy has ended.

I think such an agreement would be void if it does not reflect the true position - and if it reflected the true position it would not be necessary.

[Lawcruncher]

Actually Bobthebuilder2 I think AndrewDod is spot on. We are a business not a charity and obtaining social housing by fraud is a criminal act. Your comments are out of order.

The problem with AD's response if it is intended to be ironic is that it does not come over a ironic, not least because it is the sort of thing we have come to expect him to say.

[AndrewDod]

I think such an agreement would be void if it does not reflect the true position - and if it reflected the true position it would not be necessary.

OK, let's take this one step at a time.

If someone ASKS you to issue proceedings against themselves, why would it be unreasonable to ask that they not defend those proceedings, or that that they confirm in advance that they will not construct a particular route to defend those proceedings?

[jpkeates]

If someone ASKS you to issue proceedings against themselves, why would it be unreasonable to ask that they not defend those proceedings, or that that they confirm in advance that they will not construct a particular route to defend those proceedings?

The agreement would be impossible to enforce.
You might (just) get away with such a term in a commercial contract with legal professionals advising both sides, but not in a consumer contract.
The right to defend yourself against legal action is virtually inalienable.

[theartfullodger]

Thatcher in her 1988 Housing Act s5 legislated that tenant does not have to leave until court, court order, expiry of PO, bailiffs/hceo. See
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/5
- and of course tenant may request case is chucked out at any time until bailiff marches up front path. (Probably fail, mind).

Remembering this, how could objecting to such a course of action be unreasonable, please?

Best regards to all.

[AndrewDod]

The agreement would be impossible to enforce.
You might (just) get away with such a term in a commercial contract with legal professionals advising both sides, but not in a consumer contract.
The right to defend yourself against legal action is virtually inalienable.

I don't really agree. For example against S21 there may be all manner of defences based on the presence or absence of information. L might have issued Prescribed Information for example, but T might not have signed to say that they have received this. L could ask T to confirm in writing that they received PI prior to serving S21.

That is not so much a matter of removing the right to defend onseself, it is more akin to disclosure/clarification.

[jpkeates]

L could ask T to confirm in writing that they received PI prior to serving S21.

That is not so much a matter of removing the right to defend onseself, it is more akin to disclosure/clarification.

You can't selectively quote yourself, that's cheating!

That element would be fine.
Agreeing not to defend the proceedings wouldn't be.

So the tenant could sign to say that they had received the PI, which would make it difficult to argue that they hadn't.
But you can't stop them using it as a defence at all.

You have to imagine you're in a court (informal property court though it is) and the tenant says, I have never received the Prescribed Information.
It's one thing to produce a signed document that says "I have received the prescribed information" and quite another to produce a document that says "I agree not to defend myself by claiming not to have received the prescribed information".

[Hudson01]

Having read through the tangled web of ' he could say/she could say ,' and the necessary collusion between a LL and their tenant, it just goes to prove why the asked for S21 should not be issued. To be asked by the tenant to evict them so they can obtain (in their dreams) a council house is totally dishonest and is depriving that house (if they managed to get it) from someone who currently does not have the benefit of a private dwelling from a LL. It is fraud and all parties (if found out/evidence located) should be prosecuted..... including the LL.

[AndrewDod]

You can't selectively quote yourself, that's cheating!

That element would be fine.
Agreeing not to defend the proceedings wouldn't be.

So the tenant could sign to say that they had received the PI, which would make it difficult to argue that they hadn't.
But you can't stop them using it as a defence at all.

You have to imagine you're in a court (informal property court though it is) and the tenant says, I have never received the Prescribed Information.
It's one thing to produce a signed document that says "I have received the prescribed information" and quite another to produce a document that says "I agree not to defend myself by claiming not to have received the prescribed information".

I don't disagree with the first part of that at all.

Not exactly a parallel situation but people do agree (every day) not to issue proceedings or to reveal certain things in defence - and they cannot be prevented from doing so. But that agreement can be a separate contract which can potentially be enforced.

For example zillions of NHS staff have signed gag clauses agreeing not to bring their employers to an employment tribunal (or to reveal abuse of patients, or to say bad stuff about the Chief Executive, or to discuss certain items in court) in exchange for receiving a wad of cash, The hospitals cannot prevent those staff from subsequently suing or revealing information, but if they do the sting is that they could be sued for the cash back.

[jpkeates]

Not exactly a parallel situation but people do agree (every day) not to issue proceedings or to reveal certain things in defence - and they cannot be prevented from doing so. But that agreement can be a separate contract which can potentially be enforced.

For example zillions of NHS staff have signed gag clauses agreeing not to bring their employers to an employment tribunal (or to reveal abuse of patients, or to say bad stuff about the Chief Executive, or to discuss certain items in court) in exchange for receiving a wad of cash, The hospitals cannot prevent those staff from subsequently suing or revealing information, but if they do the sting is that they could be sued for the cash back.

Part of what makes those (repellent) agreements enforceable is that it's essential that the person signing has decent legal advice about the consequences of signing them - so they're not signing as a consumer.

[AndrewDod]

Just re-posting my response as it was flagged as spam after one spelling edit:

I agree (and that this is repellent) -- but the issue at hand is whether it is somehow "illegal" (or unusual) to have agreements/contracts that dictate whether someone else can take some sort of legal action, or conduct a certain line of defence.

That it would not be enforceable I have no doubt (regardless of legal advice). But certain parts (such as the notion that the other party agree that they have received certain documents in advance of having a claim filed against them) would not be so easy to undo.

Taking a step back here : I think the issue is that a L would not serve S21 and proceed with that to court if they knew that the other party was a) going to issue a defence b) was going to lie in the defence. Since they are being asked to do something - issue a S21 (which I do not agree is an illegal request either in and of itself) - they are entitled to know if it will be defended (since there are better alternatives if that were the case).

They are also entitled to know that T is going to pay rent and has resources to cover the cost of the action they are requesting.

I think the problem too is that when Councils advise constituents to ask L to issue S21 (and they do that often), they are also asking that this be defended (because not defending S21 would also be regarded as making oneself intentionally homeless). And often the only line of defence is a lie. They also don't warn the person that a) they are liable for costs and b) that if the council does not house them they are never likely to find suitable accommodation in the PRS in future.

[jpkeates]

I think the problem too is that when Councils advise constituents to ask L to issue S21 (and they do that often), they are also asking that this be defended (because not defending S21 would also be regarded as making oneself intentionally homeless). And often the only line of defence is a lie. They also don't warn the person that a) they are liable for costs and b) that if the council does not house them they are never likely to find suitable accommodation in the PRS in future.

Councils are in an impossible position.

If a tenant turns up looking for help because they can't afford to pay the rent or are concerned they're going to be evicted or just have problem with the landlord, the council usually doesn't have the resources to help them.
And can't advise the tenant to give notice, because that immediately disqualifies them from a lot of assistance, so the only thing they can advise is that the tenant gets the landlord to serve notice.

I don't see how they can insist the tenant file a defence to a s21 notice, but they may be able to help them point out any errors in the notice and it's easy enough to get a s21 notice wrong.

The general advice has to be "don't be poor and need help".

[AndrewDod]

The general advice has to be "don't be poor and need help".

Agreed. And especially don't be poor where those who claim to be trying to help you carry poison chalices and have a political agenda which is nothing at all to do with helping. More to do with harming.