Trying to evict a wise tenant

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Moderator2 View Post
    Three related threads have been merged.
    That explains a lot.


    Good luck, OP.

    S21 accelerated then MCOL.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by monkeysee View Post
      Section 21 should be directed to the tenant as defined in the tenancy agreement. If both are named therein then the Section 21 must name them both as well.
      Doesn't it depend on the wording of the AST? I'm sure some agreements say something about serving notices on any one tenant count as having served them on all....?
      IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Anything I say here is just an opinion, so should not be relied upon! Always check your facts with a professional who really knows their onions.

      Comment


        #18
        See Hacking v Jones (2012) and guidance from the NLA etc.

        Given the court found that the statute required all of the joint tenants to be so named in the notice I doubt a contract can be used to defeat this, on the basis that contract cannot trump statute. Besides, this isn't an issue of service it's an issue of notice validity.

        On the subject of service it's best practice to send a copy to each of the joint tenants, though in most cases a single notice served to the relevant property and addressed to them all will suffice. But perhaps not when the LL knows one of the tenants isn't resident there so won't receive it?

        The OP could always try it with their current notice, but as I mentioned in a previous post it's a potentially expensive argument to lose, though they might win given it was only a decision by an inferior court, depends on how averse to risk the OP is. The tenant appears to be relatively savvy, numptyness re forgetting he signed for the notice not withstanding.

        I wouldn't be that optimistic though, the decision of the court makes sense, the tenant is all of the joint tenants, one and together, not each in his own right, and while the act makes provision for one of any joint LL's to serve a Section 21 it makes no such distinction when dealing with it being served on 'the tenant'.
        I'm not a lawyer, what I say is the truth as I understand it. I offer no guarantee except good intentions.

        Comment


          #19
          I guess we need o/p to clarify if the names he wrote on the S21 are the same as the names written on the tenancy agreement.
          To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

          Comment


            #20
            Slightly concerned that OP said the s21 required 'him to move out on 17th' not 'seek repo after 17th Mar'. Also what date in Jan was it served (received)?

            Also was the 2nd month advance rent useod for month 1 & 2 or 2nd month payment clearly allocated to final month rent? Otherwise there could be an allegation of non-deposit protection thus invalidating s21.
            I would also consider serving a s8 g8 etc as resident T appears to be already 2+ month rent owing, and perhaps apply for Court Order to effect entry for inspection asap and take Police along when served.

            Chances of resident T vacating on expiry ot repo order if granted? IMO slim to none so Bailiffs reqd. If s21 repo is granted, then ask Court to apply cost of hearing to Ts debt
            Register any CCJ debt.

            Wise = confident blagger with some knowledge of applicable law (barrack room lawyer)
            Any similarly wise LLs tend to be seen as 'unscrupulous' by Ts & public

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X