who signs section 21 notice ?

[Paul Gibbs]

by way of assistance the case confirming that the notice does not need to be signed is Barker v Hands [2007] EWCA Civ 869

[tom999]

As mentioned above, the landlord or agent's (A) signature is not required on the notice, so the presence of A's signature would not invalidate it. More important is whether the notice includes the name(s) and address of tenant (or joint tenants) and the name(s) and address of landlord (or joint landlords), and whether the landlord has proof of service of the notice.

[jt3009]

blimey and i thouugt id just asked a simple question !!!!
still not sure if the letter i recieved (section 21 possession order) is valid signed by the letting agent

[tom999]

The link in post #13 gives: "Total documents found in BAILII databases: 3645", because the link's URL tags only include: "http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=juris&datehigh=&query=ultra " but is missing: "%20and%20vires%20and%20"statutory%20instrument"&m e thod=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=ew/cases" at the end.

[jeffrey]

But the headnote reads, "Total documents found in BAILII databases: 103".

[tom999]

Yes, except that the link in post #13 gives 3645, not 103 documents.

Try: Searching for: ultra and vires and "statutory instrument"

[jeffrey]

As to subordinate legislation, I appreciate that a form not in accordance with an act must be void. I am just interested to know if you have ever heard of a case where it has happened.

There are several cases where an SI has been held ultra vires.
If you've the time to look at 103 of them, try http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=juris&datehigh=&query=ultra %20and%20vires%20and%20"statutory%20instrument"&me thod=boolean&highlight=1&datelow=&mask_path=ew/cases.

[Lawcruncher]

I am still not sure I understand the point you are making about agents.

As to subordinate legislation, I appreciate that a form not in accordance with an act must be void. I am just interested to know if you have ever heard of a case where it has happened.

[jeffrey]

What I meant was simply that an Agent as such cannot give Notice; but a Landlord acting by an Agent can.

Can you please expand on this gnomic utterance?

Yes. An Agent has no independent power to do anything qua agent. Only acts expressly on principal's behalf should be undertaken, to avoid the principal disclaiming responsibility and the third party being seriously misled or at least baffled.

But it's true that no prescribed form can overwrite the text of an Act; in case of conflict, the Act always prevails.

Interesting. Have you ever heard of a case where this has happened?

Eh? In every case, the Act of Parliament prevails! A prescribed form is prescribed by SI; and an SI that exceeds the powers devolved by the Act concerned is ultra vires so void (and the form too).

[Lawcruncher]

An Agent as such cannot give Notice; but a Landlord acting by an Agent can.

Can you please expand on this gnomic utterance?

But it's true that no prescribed form can overwrite the text of an Act; in case of conflict, the Act always prevails.

Interesting. Have you ever heard of a case where this has happened?

[tom999]

The Housing Act 1988 (c. 50), Section 21(1)(b) and Section 21(4)(a) both mention: "...the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice..."

But, Section 21 makes no mention that LL or agent's (A) signature is required. So if the Section 21 had the LL's and the tenant's name and addresses on it, but was signed by A, this may still be a valid notice (as it's not a prescribed form in any case).

[jeffrey]

What I meant was simply that an Agent as such cannot give Notice; but a Landlord acting by an Agent can.
But it's true that no prescribed form can overwrite the text of an Act; in case of conflict, the Act always prevails.

[Lawcruncher]

Section 21 requires the Notice to be given by sole L or by at least one of joint L. A Notice by A as such is therefore invalid.

Hm. I find this difficult to believe.

I looked at section 20 and it says that the notice is one which "is served by the person who is to be the landlord under the assured tenancy on the person who is to be the tenant under that tenancy".

The prescribed form contains the words: "To be signed by the landlord or his agent (someone acting for him)."

Of course there is no prescribed form for a section 21 notice, but if you are correct then the prescribed form for a section 20 notice is apparently at variance with section 20. If we assume, as we surely must, that the prescribed form cannot be wrong, then by analogy a section 21 notice is able to be given by an agent.

There must be many instances where statute requires a notice to be given by a person in a particular capacity, but where in practice the notice is given by a solicitor or agent acting on behalf of that person. I offer as an instance section 146 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which contains the words: "unless and until the lessor serves..." It is surely well-accepted practice that both solicitors and surveyors sign section 146 notices. Are you seriously suggesting that unless the relevant statute authorises the notice to be signed by a solicitor or other agent that any such notice is invalid if not signed by the person?

[jeffrey]

can someone please advise me on who must sign the section 21 notice.....can the landlords agent sign it or must it be the landord as named on the tenancy agreement ?

An agent can sign on behalf of the landlord.

Section 21 requires the Notice to be given by sole L or by at least one of joint L. A Notice by A as such is therefore invalid.

[jt3009]

thank you very much !!!!