s.21 - Optional SoD?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • s.21 - Optional SoD?

    At the back of my AST there is a Notice Requiring Possession under section 21. This was done through a South London A who I shall refer to as D&G. After reading through hundred's of posts on the matter here, I have a feeling it is actually invalid - for a start it's dated 16th Feb 0008, so is a full 2 millennia off!

    Anyway, I thought that perhaps some of you might be interested in what I think is a bit of an underhand way for D&G to go about things.

    At the very bottom of the notice:

    *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:

    At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

    I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

    Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
    Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
    Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
    Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........



    Now to me it seems a bit like D&G has stuck a S.21 on the back of the AST in the hope that T will not know what it is/raise any questions about it, but on the offchance that they do, D&G can just 'advise' T to go for option one (as though T is being provided some special right!)

    Interestingly, D&G did not make us delete either of the alternatives, so presumably the notice actually means nothing at all? Or, as I suspect D&G could have just deleted the first alternative on their own copy should they have wanted to use the notice???

    D&G are obviously relying on T's ignorance to serve SoD S.21s - had the notice not been invalid for many other reasons, this would have worked with us as we signed without asking any questions and D&G did certainly not volunteer any info about the notice having anything to do with eviction.
    So, I don't really have a question as such, just thought I would share my experience to let other Ts (and LLs) know about this practice - for LLs who like to serve SoD S.21s surely this is not going to work?
    Last edited by stresshead; 24-01-2009, 19:03 PM. Reason: clarity

  • #2
    I did think of starting the "Shot himself in the foot letting agent of the year awards" but there would be far too many candidates.

    I have expressed the view elsewhere (though not everyone agrees with it) that a S.21 notice ought not to be served until after the tenant has gone into occupation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stresshead View Post
      At the back of my AST there is a Notice Requiring Possession under section 21. This was done through a South London A who I shall refer to as D&G. After reading through hundred's of posts on the matter here, I have a feeling it is actually invalid - for a start it's dated 16th Feb 0008, so is a full 2 millennia off!

      Anyway, I thought that perhaps some of you might be interested in what I think is a bit of an underhand way for D&G to go about things.

      At the very bottom of the notice:

      *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:

      At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

      I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

      Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
      Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
      Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
      Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........



      Now to me it seems a bit like D&G has stuck a S.21 on the back of the AST in the hope that T will not know what it is/raise any questions about it, but on the offchance that they do, D&G can just 'advise' T to go for option one (as though T is being provided some special right!)

      Interestingly, D&G did not make us delete either of the alternatives, so presumably the notice actually means nothing at all? Or, as I suspect D&G could have just deleted the first alternative on their own copy should they have wanted to use the notice???

      D&G are obviously relying on T's ignorance to serve SoD S.21s - had the notice not been invalid for many other reasons, this would have worked with us as we signed without asking any questions and D&G did certainly not volunteer any info about the notice having anything to do with eviction.
      So, I don't really have a question as such, just thought I would share my experience to let other Ts (and LLs) know about this practice - for LLs who like to serve SoD S.21s surely this is not going to work?
      Hi

      I think you might be right that the notice is invalid, but its not clear from your comments what the two alternatives are?

      Preston

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes I was confused what they wanted deleted by *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:. I did wonder if

        At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

        is for information only and the action is here:

        I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

        In which case I'd guess the tenant is to delete one of I or We as it says I/We.

        SoD = Sword of Damocles presumably.

        Also I thought the deposit needs protecting before a S21 can be served.
        ~~~~~

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Preston View Post
          Hi

          I think you might be right that the notice is invalid, but its not clear from your comments what the two alternatives are?

          Preston
          It's not clear on the notice either. There are no bulleted/numbered options just those two sentences. I took the options to be sentence one and sentence two, but after reading Ruth Less's post, I'm now thinking that sentence one was just info and the options were actually: 1) 'I' or 2) 'We'

          Originally posted by Ruth Less View Post
          Yes I was confused what they wanted deleted by *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:. I did wonder if

          At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

          is for information only and the action is here:

          I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

          In which case I'd guess the tenant is to delete one of I or We as it says I/We.

          SoD = Sword of Damocles presumably.

          Also I thought the deposit needs protecting before a S21 can be served.
          Yes SoD = Sword of Damocles, and yes deposit does need to be protected before serving, but apparently, LL does not normally serve S.21 notices when dealt with directly - in this instance, A was involved as a 'finder' and we signed the agreement and were given keys in presence of A not LL. It's standard practice for A to serve SoD S.21s, even though they obviously don't know how to do it properly (or don't care), but can rely on T's ignorance to get away with it.

          Originally, I believed our deposit was protected on the same day we signed the contract, but I actually misread the information we were given - it was received by LL on the same day but wasn't actually protected for another two weeks. So my guess is that the S.21 would be invalid for that reason alone.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think Ruth Less is correct - the applicable alternatives are 'I' or 'We'. After Googling, I have found other S.21s, which (being a lot clearer than mine) lead me to suggest that this is what was intended. Normally, an asterisked note refers to something asterisked in the above text, right? On ours, the only other asterisk on the notice is way above the 'information for tenants section' and refers to the date of the tenancy:

            Which you hold as tenant(s)
            *(on the 15 February 2009)


            It would have been helpful if the 'alternatives' were asterisked instead of the date of end of the fixed period...which I still cannot understand why is asterisked at all as there are no other notes at the bottom.

            At least I cleared it up, thanks Ruth Less!

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            • Freeholder Scaffolding Over My Flat
              Jcg76
              I have a leasehold studio flat with a garden in London that I rent out to tenants.
              Recently, the freeholder gave me three days notice that he was extending part of the building my flat is joined to and he would need to put scaffolding on my flat roof and in my garden. I immediately objected saying...
              24-07-2017, 21:20 PM
            • Reply to Freeholder Scaffolding Over My Flat
              Jcg76
              Thanks for the above info, especially the 20-30% info, I wanted to get an idea of the standard/reasonable amount.
              He does have permission, but we were not informed, although our lease stipulates that we cannot object to any of his building works. SO not a lot I can do about that.
              Can anyone...
              25-07-2017, 20:24 PM
            • Tenant application form
              Elum
              Hi all!

              So we are just about to put our flat on the market to rent is there anywhere we can get a ODF application form that we can email to any prospective tenants?

              Thanks in advance,

              Liam.
              25-07-2017, 20:14 PM
            • Three guarantors = three guarantees of deed or just one?
              aciduzzo
              I will have three guarantors as there are three (student) tenants. The agency has sent me a guarantee-of-deed sample, but i'm not sure whether i should send a separate one to all guarantors, or just have one listing all guarantors. What do others on here do?
              25-07-2017, 10:05 AM
            • Reply to Three guarantors = three guarantees of deed or just one?
              aciduzzo
              I've used landlordreferencing.co.uk for the referencing and RGI. They seem to think it's standard to ask the guarantors to guarantee the full amount. They weren't even sure whether they could provide RGI if the guarantors are only liable for 1/3 rent. So i have asked them to check with the underwriter...
              25-07-2017, 18:19 PM
            • Burglary Damage - Who Pays?
              Pb21
              Our rented flat was broken into, in the process the Yale lock was broken and cost £100 to repair. The landlord is refusing to pay this on the basis we didn’t also lock the door with the mortice lock. We didn’t use the mortice lock as it wasn’t working although the landlord did not know this....
              25-07-2017, 11:40 AM
            • Reply to Burglary Damage - Who Pays?
              leaseholder64
              It is typically a condition of insurance that there be secure, morticed deadlock, at least for contents insurance....
              25-07-2017, 17:09 PM
            • AST end date 31/07/17 advice needed.
              scooter08
              Hi, Guys, I have posted a few threads on this forum now and although the section 21 notice is probably invalid I don't want to let the landlord know that yet.
              I'm after help with writing my landlord a letter. He wants us out on the 31/07/17 and keeps asking me how I intend to leave the keys for...
              25-07-2017, 09:54 AM
            • Reply to AST end date 31/07/17 advice needed.
              scooter08
              I hear you Wright76 we're stressed out as well. We have 3 kids all with additional needs so don't want any court action and definitely not bailiffs. My landlord doesn't understand why I'm being picky, with the needs my kids have they all need separate rooms. I haven't told the landlord this as it's...
              25-07-2017, 16:45 PM
            • Reply to Burglary Damage - Who Pays?
              Pb21
              Thanks for your reply jpkeates, although just so I am clear and for the avoidance of doubt is your statement that as there has been damage while we were responsible for the property we are, consequently, responsible for the damage, your opinion or a fact?
              25-07-2017, 16:17 PM
            Working...
            X