Landlord issued wrong notice? help please

[elliemay]

Hello
I hope someone can help me.
Myself and partner rent a house on an AST, the 6 month fixed term ends today. The landlord & landlady jointly signed our AST, they have now seperated, the landlord has today given us notice as follows:-

Formal notice to quit due to a matrimonial split, giving 60 days notice. No mention of a section 21. Is this legally binding? must we leave? The landlady says we do not have to leave. Our rent is up to date and paid to the landlady as always.
Any advice would be great.

Thank you in advance.

Ellie

[elliemay]

I should add that the landlord does not hold a copy of the AST and had to ask our names at the door when serving the notice.

[Snorkerz]

The notice is invalid on the grounds that under section 21(1)(b) you are entitled to 2 calender months notice. 60 days gives you until 30th July, which is one day short.

The fact there was no mention of s21 on this one is fine, it doesn't have to be on a s21(1)(b). But any notice issued from this point forth will have to be a s21(4)(a) and that WILL require the relevant bit of law to be cited.

It is obviously time to move, he will get it right eventually (or even worse, the mortgage company will) and under section 21 you will be evicted, there is no 'defence', just errors the landlord can make.

However - no one can throw you out until the LL has a court order, and even then it's only court bailiffs.

[elliemay]

Thank you for your reply.
The letter is dated with todays date, but states 60 days notice is given from 1st June, and that the property should be handed back on 1st August. Would this make it valid?

[jeffrey]

But 1 June- 1 August (inclusive) is 62 days.

[Poppy35]

But 1 June- 1 August (inclusive) is 62 days.

I think OP means the house wll be handed back on the 1st august which means their last day would be 31st July, thats how I would read it

[jeffrey]

I think OP means the house wll be handed back on the 1st august which means their last day would be 31st July, thats how I would read it

Still 61 days!

[Snorkerz]

Can you confirm the exact date you moved into the property, and how long that tenancy agreement was for (to xx/xx/2011 or "for 6 months"). Can you confirm rent was due monthly in advance?

Have you paid a deposit, and if so, have you recieved any information about whom legally 'protects' it - DPS / TDS / My|Deposits?

Did you sign for the 'notice' or was there anyone to witness it being served upon you?

Right now, until you recieve anything to the contrary, your landlord is still "Mr & Mrs XX" - they may not live together, they may not talk, one may keep his axe in the other ones head, makes no difference - they are together legally your landlord.

The fact that the LL has no copy of the AST won't change much - although it will slightly delay the court process.

The fact that Mrs Landlord wants you to stay is irrelevant because with regard to s21, it states "in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them".

[elliemay]

Thank you for all the replies.
The tenancy started on 1st December 2010 for a term of 6 months. We have no proof of the deposit we paid, it is not protected either. Rent is payable monthly in advance. The landlords girlfriend witnessed the delivery of the notice to quit.
The notice to quit does state 60 days notice is given from 1st June 2011 and that the property must be handed back to the landlord on 1st August 2011.
We really want to stay in the property, the landlady has offered to issue another contract, would this help?

Many thanks

[jeffrey]

But Notice To Quit does not operate if the Letting Agreement created an AST.
So you should just sit tight, unless you want to take a renewal (fixed-term) and L is prepared to grant it.

[elliemay]

Thank-you again!
Yes the agreement is an AST, the landlady is happy to renew, but the new AST would only have her name and signature on it. Both the landlord & Landlady own the house, would this matter?

[Snorkerz]

But Notice To Quit does not operate if the Letting Agreement created an AST.
So you should just sit tight, unless you want to take a renewal (fixed-term) and L is prepared to grant it.

NO Jeffrey, the letter contains all the information required by section 21(1)(b) and was served on the last day of the fixed term, making 21(1)(b) the relevant statute.
It was issued by "one of" the landlords, which is all that it requires. A new fixed term AST issued by the other landlord would not be valid as all the owners would surely have to agree to the new lease.

Elliemay: If you can prove you paid a deposit (maybe Mrs LL would give you a receipt) then once you have proof the deposit was not protected on 31/5 the notice served on you becomes invalid - an s21 can not be served whilst a deposit is unprotected. Even strong evidence - cash withdrawal on same day - may be sufficient to convince a court.

Got to say it again though, you are just delaying the inevitable.

[westminster]

But Notice To Quit does not operate if the Letting Agreement created an AST.

*facepalm* If the notice served gives T at least two months then it will be valid under s.21(1)(b), regardless of whether it calls itself a NTQ or a notice of twinkly fairy dancing. If it doesn't give T at least two months' then it will be invalid.

(You're also ignoring the fact that OP says deposit isn't protected).

[jeffrey]

*facepalm*

Incomprehensible.

If the notice served gives T at least two months then it will be valid under s.21(1)(b)**, regardless of whether it calls itself a NTQ or a notice of twinkly fairy dancing. If it doesn't give T at least two months' then it will be invalid.

(You're also ignoring the fact that OP says deposit isn't protected).

Yes and yes; neither point contradicts my post, you know.

** Wrong if, as you footnote, the deposit isn't protected.

[westminster]

Incomprehensible.

Welcome to the internet.

** Wrong if, as you footnote, the deposit isn't protected.

Yet again failing to get the point.