Have you ever had a S21 notice successfully challenged in court?

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

  • Have you ever had a S21 notice successfully challenged in court?

    LL's who have issued S21 notices (especially Sword of Damocles ones) HAVE YOU EVER HAD THESE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED IN COURT or did you win every time?

    Please lets not make this into a debate on the rights and wrongs of S21/SoD (there's a big thread about that just near here ). I would just like to know the practical experiences of those who have used them, in light of theories that they might be easily challenged as invalid even if you have your dates right. (Again, particularly SoD S21's).

  • #2
    Hi Miffy

    I wonder if it would be better to put this query on the other thread instead so that we can keep the whole debate together? This is part of the other debate and something I would like answered too.

    Do you fancy posting it there and directing people there instead?

    I think you should also ask for any challenged at all so that there was a delay for a hearing rather than accelerated procedure, and those that were not successful too.
    ~~~~~

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Miffy View Post
      LL's who have issued S21 notices (especially Sword of Damocles ones) HAVE YOU EVER HAD THESE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED IN COURT or did you win every time?
      I like this thread

      http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ord+lawstudent

      I think lawstudent wins the argument; i.e. judges may make mistakes (can happen over any point of law) but a full challenge has never been successful against a SoD S21. (up to the date of the thread that is)
      All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

      * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You can search the forums here:

      Comment


      • #4
        Bel - excellent thread to link to. That thread is essential reading for anyone wishing to find out the exact legalities of SoD S21 notices, with very good info from both lawstudent(who incidentally I haven't seen around for ages!) and Paul_F in particular. Although Andy's posts just go to show that judges can and do get it wrong!

        I think this post in that thread is of particular interest:

        http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...6&postcount=36

        Again Bel excellent link ,well worth bringing to everyone's attention!
        Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ultimately, the tenant should get the hell out as requested. The real issue I think, is the preservation of the 2 months notice.

          This what SOD removes.
          Now signature free.

          Comment


          • #6
            Worth noting that, that thread in mind, the only three legal reasons under which an S21 can fail(as far as I can see)are:

            - Incorrect dates/other information on the notice.

            - The notice wasnt issued "without reservation" - ie it was at any point conditional. So as said elsewhere recently, if the notice is issued saying "we will not use it if you are good tenants", it is automatically invalid.

            - If a new tenancy is offered - but I hope no-one is stupid enough to even try in this situation!
            Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

            Comment


            • #7
              What if you issue a s21 and tell tenant it will be inforced if arrears are not paid by certain time, if you then start taking payments towards arrears are you entering into a new agreement and the s21 cant be inforced?

              Comment


              • #8
                I would say that as soon as it is stated that it will be enforced if arrears are not paid by a certain time, you have made the S21 conditional, and hence invalid.
                Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Agree with Mr Shed that putting conditions on the S21 notice would invalidate it.

                  Seems that johnboy should really use S8 if his objective is merely to recover rent.
                  Vic - wicked landlord
                  Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
                  Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bel View Post
                    I like this thread

                    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ord+lawstudent

                    I think lawstudent wins the argument; i.e. judges may make mistakes (can happen over any point of law) but a full challenge has never been successful against a SoD S21. (up to the date of the thread that is)


                    Well that is a good thread and I agree with lawstudent that the S21 has no time limit. lawstudent is defending the S21 on the basis of age, that an S21 remains invalid indefinitely. No one is disputing that now. The thread does however address the issue of what the landlord may do to invalidate the S21, e.g. making it conditional on the tenant's behaviour.

                    See paul_f's post #36 in the thread:

                    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...6&postcount=36

                    And #39

                    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...2&postcount=39

                    With a SoD S21 the landlord has to somehow let the tenant know it's OK to stay on, or risk the tenant obeying the S21. Thus making it conditional and therefore invalid. After all a tenant should leave on expiry of the S21 and a good tenant will unless given reason to believe otherwise. The landlord doesn't want to evict a good tenant and on day 1 when serving the S21 he doesn't know if the tenant is good or not. Presumably he thinks the tenant will be otherwise why allow the tenancy?

                    I reckon it'd be easy to prove the landlord made the S21 conditional as I've already said elsewhere.

                    But ultimately the best defence for a tenant is to make clear they will obey the S21 unless it is properly withdrawn in good time.

                    PS. Where does it say a full challenge has never been successful against a SoD S21? I don't see that anywhere and even if it did does it say the tenant used the defence of you can't make a S21 conditional?
                    ~~~~~

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think what it says is that no legal challenge can succeed unless it is one of the three points I made above, of which the S21 being conditional is one. If one of these three points can be proven, that there SHOULD be no question that this successfully invalidates the S21.
                      Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Ruth; please see my comments in red for points you raised concerning my post
                        Originally posted by Ruth Less View Post
                        Well that is a good thread and I agree with lawstudent that the S21 has no time limit. lawstudent is defending the S21 on the basis of age, that an S21 remains invalid indefinitely. No one is disputing that now. I was just responding to the OP of this thread; this is no obvious from the OPThe thread does however address the issue of what the landlord may do to invalidate the S21, e.g. making it conditional on the tenant's behaviour.

                        See paul_f's post #36 in the thread:

                        http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...6&postcount=36

                        And #39

                        http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...2&postcount=39

                        With a SoD S21 the landlord has to somehow let the tenant know it's OK to stay on, or risk the tenant obeying the S21. Thus making it conditional and therefore invalid. After all a tenant should leave on expiry of the S21 and a good tenant will unless given reason to believe otherwise. The landlord doesn't want to evict a good tenant and on day 1 when serving the S21 he doesn't know if the tenant is good or not. Presumably he thinks the tenant will be otherwise why allow the tenancy?

                        I reckon it'd be easy to prove the landlord made the S21 conditional as I've already said elsewhere.

                        But ultimately the best defence for a tenant is to make clear they will obey the S21 unless it is properly withdrawn in good time.

                        PS. Where does it say a full challenge has never been successful against a SoD S21?I meant that lawstudent points out that judges get points of law wrong in the first instance, which can easily be rectified by taking it to appeal. If no one appeals, then it may slip through the net; but doesn't make it 'right' legally. I don't see that anywhere and even if it did does it say the tenant used the defence of you can't make a S21 conditional?
                        All posts in good faith, but do not rely on them

                        * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *

                        You can search the forums here:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MrShed View Post
                          - The notice wasnt issued "without reservation" - ie it was at any point conditional. So as said elsewhere recently, if the notice is issued saying "we will not use it if you are good tenants", it is automatically invalid.
                          This is the one I'd challenge an SoD S21 on. Question is the "we will not use it if you are good tenants" most probably isn't going to be written down, it'll be verbal only from the landlord. So is the onus on the tenant to prove what was said or the landlord to prove it wasn't said.

                          I've set out how I'd do it here:

                          http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...&postcount=119

                          Do you think such a challenge would stand a chance?
                          ~~~~~

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ruth less. I thought if we started a new thread simply on the REALITY (rather than the theory) of how S21's have progressed in the courts, asking for people's real experiences (sort of like a poll) we might attract some swift and to the point answers. I was a bit worried that people with that information might not (still?) be reading the other thread that we hijacked .

                            Everyone. Thanks for your contributions. The links provided are interesting (i did read them previously, I believe) but still address the THEORY of what happens. Does anyone have any real life examples to share (don't have to go into great detail if you don't want; just a quick one-liner would do).

                            Ruth less has made a convincing case that it seems that a well-advised tenant could always at least claim that they were offered equivocation over the S21 (whether telling the truth or not). If I understand her correctly, she is saying that a court is more likely to believe the tenant if the case looks like a SoD which has continued beyond the initial term. Also, unless the LL had truthfully never made any noises about the S21 being conditional (say on paying the rent the T owes) the LL would have to be prepared to lie in court, as he has invalidated his own notice! Therefore, it seems to me that most bad tenants could probably be got rid of because they don't bother to defend the S21, BUT its a risk because "professional" tenants and anyone prepared to go to court would have a good chance of beating the LL's case.

                            In the thread we have linked to, it seems that one real life example (Andy Parker) was that the court dismissed his S21. He didn't appeal, so perhaps the court was wrong but nevertheless it was a setback we wouldn't want as a LL issuing a S21.

                            Has no one else on these boards had to test an S21 (particularly SoD) in court?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ruth, not only do I think it would stand a chance, I think if proven the court would have no option BUT to invalidate the notice. As you rightly highlight, the difficulty is in proving this, as 95% of the time this is only said verbally. I guess the thing to do is for tenants to get this in writing, most agents/landlords probably won't have a problem with this as I am guessing(perhaps wrongly!) that most will not be aware that this invalidates the S21.
                              Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Claiming for protected deposit
                                mandm
                                This is an interesting one, got me into a spin.
                                Tenants signed AST but decided to leave after 6 months and 3 days (problem with moving) using the break clause in the AST. I protected the deposit using DPS (Insured) and returned the deposit minus deductions when the moved out.
                                I served the...
                                21-07-2017, 08:00 AM
                              • Reply to Claiming for protected deposit
                                mariner
                                It was the situation predicted by some Judges et al when it was first proposed that the full Penalty would be awarded to the T and not the Exchequer.
                                22-07-2017, 01:16 AM
                              • Reply to Claiming for protected deposit
                                JK0
                                I agree. It's almost at the level of scandal as the people claiming cash by pretending they were ill on holiday. In that case, the Spanish Hotels have told tour operators they won't be doing all inclusive holidays any more.

                                Therefore, I suggest landlords take a page out of their book, and...
                                21-07-2017, 22:22 PM
                              • Reply to Claiming for protected deposit
                                mandm
                                Letter sent with the evidence attached.
                                Slightly off topic, it seems there this deposit protection appears to have gathered conflicting views.
                                I would have thought that the purpose of the legislation was the protection of T's money, which most law-abiding landlords do but it seems that its...
                                21-07-2017, 21:20 PM
                              • Landlord threatening to sue after end of tenancy
                                Pickle135
                                Our tenancy has just ended. We have cleaned the property from top to bottom using professional cleaners to do this and clean the carpets. He suggested this hadn't been done and wanted the name of our contractor to check which we gave him. The contractor assured him that after eight years the carpets...
                                08-03-2017, 00:45 AM
                              • Reply to Landlord threatening to sue after end of tenancy
                                Pickle135
                                Woohoo!

                                Our adjudication has just come through and the landlord has been given a token payment with the majority of our large deposit being returned to us. He was told that he had not submitted appropriate evidence for the misuse of the property and that things he was saying were wrong...
                                21-07-2017, 20:49 PM
                              • Deposit at the end of AST. Also, quiet enjoyment.
                                scooter08
                                Q1 – Where is the rented property located (England / Wales / Scotland / N Ireland)?
                                England

                                Q2 – What type of Tenancy Agreement (TA) is this e.g. sole tenant / multiple tenant / room only?
                                AST

                                Q3 – What date did current TA start dd/mm/yy?
                                12/04/2015
                                ...
                                21-07-2017, 15:06 PM
                              • Reply to Deposit at the end of AST. Also, quiet enjoyment.
                                scooter08
                                Thanks for the reply jp....
                                21-07-2017, 18:32 PM
                              • Reply to Deposit at the end of AST. Also, quiet enjoyment.
                                jpkeates
                                Makes sense - if the tenancy agreement doesn't say you have to let him and a surveyor in, his only right of access is with 24 hours written notice for the purpose of viewing the "condition and state of repair" of the property.

                                So you can simply decline or make your point.
                                ...
                                21-07-2017, 18:23 PM
                              • Reply to Deposit at the end of AST. Also, quiet enjoyment.
                                scooter08
                                I'm not trying to claim for breach of quiet enjoyment. He wants to be in again with a surveyor to use his property as security for something. I am going to let him I just want to remind him and have all the facts. Sorry if I didn't explain it right.

                                Only claiming for the non protection...
                                21-07-2017, 18:08 PM
                              Working...
                              X