Section 21(4) Court of appeal case

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

  • Section 21(4) Court of appeal case

    I've done some research and I thought you guys might be interested.

    Please find link for the court of appeal case from 29 March 2006. Notting Hill Housing Trust v Rumus.

    The case is similar to mine in the sense the only argument is whether the s21(4) notice was valid.

    The county court judge found for the claimant, but the tenant appealed.

    The tenant's argument was that the wording used 'at the end of' in the notice should have said 'after'.

    The court of appeal found that 'at the end of' means the same as 'after' and so found for the landlord.

    In my case I used 'on expiry of' which means the same as 'at the end of', so hopefully my case will be okay. The judge has said in my court hearing letter that he is not satisfied with my wording 'on expiry of' - so hopefully this case will satisfy him.

    I would appreciate your thoughts.

    Thanks,

    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

  • #2
    I see that this relates to your previous thread about this matter

    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ead.php?t=6193

    From reading the judgement, I would make use of one example that Lord Justice Dyson gave:
    the soldiers came home "at the end of the war" means that they came home after the war had ended or after the end of the war. It does not mean that they came home at the split second when the enemy surrendered
    In your case, it is true that the soldiers came home on expiry of the last day of war. It does not mean at that instant.
    On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Because of the number of posts I have done, I am now a Senior Member. However, read anything I write with the above in mind.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for your thoughts.

      Is it worth me issuing another s21(4) on a without prejudice basis in case the judge still throws this one out, or could that work against me at the court hearing if the defendant produces it?

      Is it possible to issue a second notice on a without prejudice basis or will it automatically supercede the old one? Does anyone know any good lawyers I could ask to get confirmation, even if I have to pay them a small fee?

      Thanks.

      Comment

      Latest Activity

      Collapse

      • Abandonment
        buttons
        I have had a phone call from the tenants daughter, (didnt know she existed), telling me he is leaving in two weeks. I told her he has nearly 4 months left on his 12 month AST. I subsequently got two calls from a housing association. asking for a reference for him, I told them the situation but they...
        20-09-2017, 19:56 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        KTC
        If the tenant holds a material interest of 6 months or more (i.e. during the 12 months AST), then the tenant is liable for council tax whether they are resident or not. During a SPT, the liability revert to the landlord when the tenant is no longer resident.
        20-09-2017, 21:33 PM
      • Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
        koksy
        I own a freehold house which has had the front garden paved over to provide off road parking. There is a dropped kerb in front of the garden and double yellow lines all the way across the front of the house.

        The local neighbours are choosing to ignore the double yellow lines and keep parking...
        20-09-2017, 18:22 PM
      • Reply to Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
        leaseholder64
        The police really do not like dealing with this sort of thing, and you are unlikely to get a response, even though they could prosecute for obstructive parking. This is especially true given the double yellow lines, as they would prefer the council impose a civil penalty.

        Although it will...
        20-09-2017, 21:20 PM
      • Reply to Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
        security2
        If someone blocked the public footway outside the front gate to the property so your tenant couldn't walk into the property, would he call you to get this rectified? Or would he call the police/council?

        No different if its a car on the public highway or any other blockage on the public...
        20-09-2017, 21:20 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        Wannadonnadoodah
        May only be tenants who have housing benefit paid then.
        20-09-2017, 21:17 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        buttons
        This I believe is incorrect, I do have experience of that part happening before and sent the council a copy of the AST and they cancelled my charge....
        20-09-2017, 21:14 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        Wannadonnadoodah
        In the eyes of the council as soon as he starts paying CT at his new property the liability will fall to you regardless of what else is happening.
        20-09-2017, 21:02 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        buttons
        I thought you could have it so that property was marketed but he still had liability as he wont be able to pay anything as he is unemployed and would reduce his liability to council tax if let before the end of his tenancy.
        20-09-2017, 20:48 PM
      • Reply to Abandonment
        KTC
        Either you recover the property, or the tenant is still the tenant with liability for rent & council tax (during fixed term of 6 months or more). You can't have it both ways of getting the property back but not liable for council tax.
        20-09-2017, 20:38 PM
      Working...
      X