Jesus Christ, you don't have to agree with it, but it'd really help if you actually read and take in what posters are saying (their arguments are), rather than go straight in arguing against what you think they wrote rather than what they actually wrote.
When it comes to law, little changes to wording can make huge differences. It appears to me your lawyer stated something to you, and then you are summarising your understanding of what the lawyer stated, in the course of which you have changed its legal meaning.
I don't know why you are quoting a case that you then freely admit does not apply to you. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply. It doesn't help or hurt your argument.
Everyone argrees there was a new tenancy when it was "renewed". Everyone agrees that at the time that new tenancy was granted, you did not have a valid EPC for that property. No one is saying that EPC doesn't expire just because the person occupying the property stays the same throughout the relevant period of time.
jpkeates' argument is that based on the wording of the requirement as prescribed under Reg. 6(5) of The Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 as amended, it doesn't matter. jpkeates is arguing that it doesn't matter because at an earlier point in time the eventual tenant was given a copy of an EPC that was valid at the time it was given to them by the landlord. And that's all that the requirement under Reg. 6(5) requires, not that at the start of the tenancy a valid EPC exist, or that giving of an EPC is only valid for one particular tenancy.
But as jpkeates said, it's all moot if you can't even remember whether you had previously given a copy of the EPC (whether valid at the time or not) to the tenant.
* There may or may not be a requirement for a valid EPC to exist at the start of every tenancy as a result of the minimal standard required by The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 as amended, but non-compliance with that does not affec the validity of section 21 notice so irrevelant to the current discussion.
When it comes to law, little changes to wording can make huge differences. It appears to me your lawyer stated something to you, and then you are summarising your understanding of what the lawyer stated, in the course of which you have changed its legal meaning.
This does NOT apply in my case as the tenant was not on a statutory periodic tenancy but on an assured shorthold tenancy year to year...
In other words the tenancy didn't expire in 2020 and just roll on automatically. A new assured shorthold tenancy was signed. So the tenant wasn't shown a EPC when they signed (renewed) and they couldn't have been because it had already expired.
jpkeates' argument is that based on the wording of the requirement as prescribed under Reg. 6(5) of The Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 as amended, it doesn't matter. jpkeates is arguing that it doesn't matter because at an earlier point in time the eventual tenant was given a copy of an EPC that was valid at the time it was given to them by the landlord. And that's all that the requirement under Reg. 6(5) requires, not that at the start of the tenancy a valid EPC exist, or that giving of an EPC is only valid for one particular tenancy.
But as jpkeates said, it's all moot if you can't even remember whether you had previously given a copy of the EPC (whether valid at the time or not) to the tenant.
* There may or may not be a requirement for a valid EPC to exist at the start of every tenancy as a result of the minimal standard required by The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 as amended, but non-compliance with that does not affec the validity of section 21 notice so irrevelant to the current discussion.
Comment