Section 21 - never received

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

    #16
    Taking on board all comments, I still think it's a tall story myself. And I think a judge would find the lie in it.

    I maintain he is very much on the back foot entering that courtroom (if indeed he attends)

    That said, having just received my credit card bill for several 1000 pounds, I intend ignoring it and claiming they sent me some discount vouchers for Madame Tussauds by mistake.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Wannadonnadoodah View Post
      He just wants to know if a kebab menu is admissible in court as evidence.

      NO.!


      T does not like the quality of the menu....

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
        In this case though I am having difficulty seeing what a landlord would hope to gain by serving a flyer instead of an actual notice.
        There have been many cases reported on these forums where tenants have stopped paying rent when receiving an S21, this kind of underhand trickery could avoid that situation. If a court will accept proof of postage as evidence, then what is to stop a landlord from simply posting empty envelopes? As far as I know the post office don’t check that the contents match the description?
        I also post as Moderator2 when moderating

        Comment


          #19
          There is a huge volume of fairly low level legal cases based on a straight "he said/No I didn't" problem.
          This would just be one of them.

          The judge would listen to both sides and decide (on a simple balance of probabilities basis) who was the more credible.
          There can only be one possible reality - either the envelope for which the landlord presumably has proof of positing contained only a kebab leaflet or it did not.

          No one can know the truth other than the people sending and receiving the envelope (and any witnesses to either event).
          This is exactly what the legal system should be dealing with.

          The simplest answer for the judge is to elect to believe the tenant - because that's the least difficult outcome.
          The landlord simply has to start the process again and (notionally) be more careful in what he puts in the envelope.
          The end point, and evicted tenant, is still the same, there's just some delay.
          If the judge elects to believe the landlord, the tenant is simply going to be evicted more quickly than they expected, and the only beneficiary of that is the (by definition, grasping and rapacious) landlord.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #20
            Do you think the problem is lessened using the 2 x proofs method? i.e. it is less likely a landlord would accidentally enclose 2 kebab menus? It doesn't deal with the issues mentioned by Mars Mug above of course.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              The simplest answer for the judge is to elect to believe the tenant - because that's the least difficult outcome.
              The landlord simply has to start the process again and (notionally) be more careful in what he puts in the envelope.
              But the logic of that is that on the second (and subsequent occasions) the tenant again argues that he got a nice registered letter but that it contained no section 21 notice. I do not think that the court should take the "least difficult outcome" approach, but rather weigh up who comes across as the most reliable witness.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by jghomer View Post
                Do you think the problem is lessened using the 2 x proofs method? i.e. it is less likely a landlord would accidentally enclose 2 kebab menus? It doesn't deal with the issues mentioned by Mars Mug above of course.
                Possibly. The whole point is that the law has quite a lot to say about what constitutes valid service, but really does not address the question of ensuring that what is actually sent is what the sending party says is sent. Whilst there may be a little bit of a point in pretending to serve a section 21 notice (to stop the tenant paying rent) it is not on a par with the sort of notice where a response is needed where it can clearly be to the sender's advantage if he can persuade the court that a notice was served when it was not.

                Comment


                  #23
                  I don't think this specific case would change if there were multiple postings / proof.

                  I think the tenants case is that there was no s21 in the envelope and they don't know why the landlord (as it later turned out to be) sent a menu.
                  If they'd known it was the landlord, they should probably have checked, but, presumably there was no way to see who'd posted the envelope.

                  If there were two envelopes, the situation is the same for the tenant. It's simply more odd.

                  However, I think that the court would actually tend to favour the tenant if there were more than one envelope and menu in the story.

                  At the moment, the case depends entirely on the judges view of who is telling the truth.
                  We don't have any other evidence, and can't make any further progress.
                  A witness who could corroborate the tenant's amusing story about the registered letter with a menu would be helpful - for example.

                  But there remains the possibility that the LL mistakenly posted a menu and threw the s21 notice into the recycling.
                  We've all done daft things (I've dropped the milk in the bin and put a crisp packet in the fridge in my time).
                  But to do it twice would make you suspect the LL of a deception.
                  Which would put the LL on the back foot slightly in my opinion.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                    But the logic of that is that on the second (and subsequent occasions) the tenant again argues that he got a nice registered letter but that it contained no section 21 notice. I do not think that the court should take the "least difficult outcome" approach, but rather weigh up who comes across as the most reliable witness.
                    The "simplest" answer I propose would only apply the first time the story was used.
                    After a second or other occurrence, I think the presumption would go the other way.

                    And there's nothing prejudicial about a court knowing that a similar event had already occurred between the parties.

                    And sorry for the multiple posts - missed the new page.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post

                      The simplest answer for the judge is to elect to believe the tenant - because that's the least difficult outcome.
                      The landlord simply has to start the process again and (notionally) be more careful in what he puts in the envelope.
                      The end point, and evicted tenant, is still the same, there's just some delay.
                      Not if there are(as in this case)rent arrears.
                      If I were a judge, I would tend not to believe a tenant that had serious rent arrears, and give him the opportunity to rack up more.
                      Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Point of order...........Do not registered letters have to have the name and address of the sender?
                        I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

                        Comment


                          #27
                          The OP says recorded delivery.

                          Last time I sent something that had to be signed for, it didn't have my address on it.
                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X