Section 21 as issued by letting agent

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

  • Preston
    replied
    Originally posted by johnboy View Post
    I agree with Ruth Less the deposit has to be protected first before a s21 is served or is invalid.
    This is correct. Section 215 of the Housing Act 2004 reads (the relevant bit is highlighted):

    215 Sanctions for non-compliance
    (1)If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
    (a)the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
    (b)the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit.

    (2)If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with.
    (3)If any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as the property in question is returned to the person by whom it was given as a deposit.
    (4)In subsection (3) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).
    (5)In this section a “section 21 notice” means a notice under section 21(1)(b) or (4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on termination of shorthold tenancy).

    Leave a comment:


  • johnboy
    replied
    I agree with Ruth Less the deposit has to be protected first before a s21 is served or is invalid.

    Leave a comment:


  • kayak
    replied
    Originally posted by Ruth Less View Post
    Hi Rachel,

    To be valid the S21 needs to be served after the tenancy has started and after the deposit is protected.
    .
    Is this technically correct? The S21 couldn't be enforced whilst a deposit isn't protected, but I believe it could still be served with an unprotected deposit.

    Maybe that's what you're saying anyway!

    Leave a comment:


  • kayak
    replied
    Substitute my second AST for S21, typing error!

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by kayak View Post
    Is the T signs the AST, pays a deposit and then signs the AST would that be invalid ?
    Why would he want to sign it before and after paying a deposit?

    This is senseless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ruth Less
    replied
    Hi Rachel,

    To be valid the S21 needs to be served after the tenancy has started and after the deposit is protected.

    I agree with Poppy, this precautionary serving of the Section 21 isn't very friendly. The problem the tenant has is in knowing if the notice is meant or not. The fact is a tenant does need time to arrange moving house so if he is told the notice is normal practice, and thus does not know if he is being asked to leave or not, how does he know if and when to start looking to move?

    Many tenants do not realise that the Section 21 can be enforced any time after the notice period is up, so if the tenant stays on a periodic tenancy (because he was told the S21 is normal practice) he is not entitled to be given two months notice (the old S21 was his notice). This is why the precautionary serving of the S21 is nicknamed the Sword of Damocles. It has been discussed a lot on this forum, if you search for Damocles you will find the past discussions.

    Leave a comment:


  • kayak
    replied
    Is the T signs the AST, pays a deposit and then signs the AST would that be invalid?

    As I see it, there is a contract and there is consideration, is this not enough?

    What interests me, is if a LA serves a S21 1 b, the AST then goes periodic, and the LA gives two months notice off the original S21, would the notice still be valid, as it should be S21 4 a?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    A notice served before the tenant goes into possession is invalid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Poppy
    replied
    For some landlords and agents, this is their practice. It's not very friendly in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • rachel230
    started a topic Section 21 as issued by letting agent

    Section 21 as issued by letting agent

    Hi,

    Wonder if anyone can enlighten me.

    Is it fairly normal practice for a letting agent to issue a section 21, dated and to be signed by the tenant at the START of the tenancy, but to be actioned (if appropriate) at the end of the agreed tenancy (for example tenant signs to take possession 1st of Jan, but part of the documents to be signed includes a section 21 to be signed IN ADVANCE as notice served to vacate in 6/12 months time or whatever the agreed period is at the start of the tenancy).

    Many thanks
    Rachel

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X