Answers to Question time (3)!

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

  • Answers to Question time (3)!

    Well I did say you would need not only your wits, but a calendar; I think many of you didn’t realise the significance of this and as a result you fell into the trap! Also you need to know how Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 works. You should all have a clause within your AST referring to the act otherwise you would have to serve any Notice on the tenant personally i.e. in his hand, to be valid, so be warned!

    Your AST should go on to say that any Notice will be sufficiently served if served by hand (this includes putting the notice through the letter box to the property – a communal letterbox or hallway will not be sufficient.), or sent by first-class post deemed to be delivered two working days later. If a notice is served by hand before 5 p.m., it is deemed to be delivered on the next working day; if served after 5 p.m. means it is deemed to be served after the next working day. A working day excludes Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

    So that you can see how service of most of the notices works.

    Here then are the answers:-

    1. Invalid. The notice was not deemed to be served until 3rd May (29th April is excluded by effluxion of time, 30th April, Saturday 1st May Sunday 2nd May Bank Holiday) So you get the picture.
    2. Valid. It was served on the tenant personally so the Law of Property Act 1925 does not apply.
    3. Invalid. It needs to be addressed to the tenants “in their own name”, but it would have been valid had it been as the time constraints deemed it to be served on 29th April.
    4. Invalid on two counts; (A) time constraints as in (1) and (B) it was posted through a communal letterbox.
    5. Invalid. 27th May was a Friday, and as it’s after 6p.m., therefore it is not deemed to be delivered until two working days later. What is 30th May? - a Bank Holiday, so it excludes 31st May anyway, so your notice was deemed to be served on 1st June – too late, I’m afraid.
    6. Valid.
    7. Invalid. 28th May is a Saturday. Even if the tenant signs to say he has received the notice on 31st May, the LPA 1925 states clearly that any notice sent by first-class post is deemed to be served two working days later; this therefore excludes 31st May so is deemed to be served on 1st June which is too late! Also the notice should say “after” 31st July but I did add a codicil to this at a later stage but it wouldn’t have altered the fact the notice was invalid.
    8. There is no requirement to sign a Section 21 notice by anybody! Surprised? There is nothing in the Housing Act to say it has to be, and many solicitors still get it wrong.

    So there you have it. Please feel free to paste these into a word document so you don’t make mistakes that can easily catch you out!

    I haven't had time to see who got most questions right but I'm sure you can work it out for yourselves!
    The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

  • #2
    Ouch! Thanks for the info Paul, much appreciated. My tenancy agreement is OK but I wasn't aware of the time/date significance.

    Comment


    • #3
      well done Paul f - an interesting and instructive exercise - you have surpassed yourself
      Disclaimer: What I say is either right or wrong. It may be advisable to check what I say with a solicitor. If he says I am right then I am right, unless he is wrong in which case I am wrong; but if he says I am wrong then I am wrong, unless he is wrong in which case I am right

      Comment


      • #4
        The moral being avoid Bank Holidays when serving section 21 notices!

        Comment


        • #5
          Agree, very interesting and informative.

          Anyone have the exact wording of the clause for the tenancy?

          Comment


          • #6
            Sneaky!! I missed the bank holiday on the 30th ... stupid calendar!!, that stopped me getting 5 & 7

            I had always been under the impression that if a notice was served after 5.00pm - even if handed to the tenant directly - it still got treated as a next day service.
            My advice is not based on formal legal training but experience gained in 20+ years in the letting industry.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RichieP
              Agree, very interesting and informative.

              Anyone have the exact wording of the clause for the tenancy?
              You can more or less use the wording in the second paragraph of my posting as it's almost verbatim from the Act. It isn't important to use the exact wording, just that you inform the tenant in your AST as to its function.
              The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks Paul.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paul_f
                  you need to know how Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 works. You should all have a clause within your AST referring to the act otherwise you would have to serve any Notice on the tenant personally i.e. in his hand, to be valid, so be warned!
                  I don't see any need to refer to the Act in the AST. Nor do notices ever have to be be placed in the tenant's hand to be validly served. Where did you get these ideas?
                  Disclaimer: What I say is either right or wrong. It may be advisable to check what I say with a solicitor. If he says I am right then I am right, unless he is wrong in which case I am wrong; but if he says I am wrong then I am wrong, unless he is wrong in which case I am right

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hey lawstudent, why not dig up a really old thread to score a point?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm not trying to score a point - do you not think it is important that the users of this site get correct information?
                      Disclaimer: What I say is either right or wrong. It may be advisable to check what I say with a solicitor. If he says I am right then I am right, unless he is wrong in which case I am wrong; but if he says I am wrong then I am wrong, unless he is wrong in which case I am right

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lawstudent
                        I don't see any need to refer to the Act in the AST. Nor do notices ever have to be be placed in the tenant's hand to be validly served. Where did you get these ideas?
                        Lawstudent is correct the 1926 Act does not have to be refered to in an AST nor do notices have to be delivered by hand
                        Disclaimer:I have over 30 years experience in housing(both social and private) as an EHO and Building Surveyor.I am also a certified expert witness having spent the last 15years working in housing litigation.The advice I give is from experience in working for various Local Authorities and how the law is interpretated.Housing Law is a minefield and is continually being amended if in any doubt you should consult a solicitor or someone of equal legal standing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The point about S.196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (not aware of any 1926 Act!) is that the tenant should be made aware as to how Notices might be served upon him otherwise he might easily be able to claim in court that he didn't know. Provided you include it within the AST then you can also serve Notices by Email or fax perfectly validly in addition to the normal recorded delivery/registered post method.

                          In the absence of any information in the AST as to how Notices will be served on the tenant, then you would have to serve one personally (put into his hand) to comply with S.196 because that would then be the only way you could be absolutely certain he had had one served upon him.
                          The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sorry, Paul f, you are wrong again. A Notice can be validly served under S196 even though it may never be seen by its intended recipient. One way a landlord can do it is to deliver it to the tenanted property (whether or not the tenant is there). This is very elementary and I am surprised that, as someone who runs courses that include the serving of notices, you do not know it.
                            Think of it like tennis: if you serve an ace correctly and get awarded the point (since we were talking about point-scoring before and Wimbledon is fast approaching) it will do your opponent no good bleating to the umpire, "You can't be serious - I never even saw the ball"
                            To paraphrase an old story, a Scottish tenant who never saw an important notice (although it had been correctly served under S196) went to court and said to a very English judge, "But Milud, I did'na ken". "Well", responded the judge, "Ye ken the noo"
                            Disclaimer: What I say is either right or wrong. It may be advisable to check what I say with a solicitor. If he says I am right then I am right, unless he is wrong in which case I am wrong; but if he says I am wrong then I am wrong, unless he is wrong in which case I am right

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              hi,
                              can i just ask what happens if notice is served over the xmas period?. in my situation notice was served on the 20/12/05 after 6 pm . just wondering if this was invalid? i thought it might be as there was so many holidays around that 2 month period what with christmas and new year that i think it is unfair because you cannot go out and look for somewhere then because everywhere is shut .
                              thanks

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • NTQ during fixed term?
                                vpltd
                                Hi,
                                Can a LL issue a valid NTQ during the six-month fixed term of an AST agreement?
                                (A residential let in England.)
                                VPL.
                                11-08-2017, 14:53 PM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                jpkeates
                                Except that the repossession order doesn't actually end the tenancy either, it simply says that it must end.
                                Then, either the tenant has to surrender the property to comply with the order or the order has to be executed by bailiifs.
                                Which actually ends the tenancy.

                                So the court...
                                22-08-2017, 12:59 PM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                StuartH
                                Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? ...
                                22-08-2017, 12:55 PM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                StuartH
                                I'm pretty unlikely to agree with anything you write, as a matter of general principle; and certainly, see no value in debating why. I wish you a good afternoon....
                                22-08-2017, 12:52 PM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                KTC
                                Let's try to construct that piece of legislation.

                                (1) & (2) can stand on its own. There's no inconsistence to prevent accepting that a tenant leaving after receiving a s21 before/without court is leaving "as a result of the service of a notice". The bit some have difficuities...
                                22-08-2017, 12:14 PM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                jpkeates
                                The legislation the says that also says that it must happen at a hearing that is impossible.

                                It has to happen at a repossession hearing when the tenancy has ended as a "result" of a s21 (and ended during a tenancy period to require a rebate).

                                The only possible scenario...
                                22-08-2017, 10:20 AM
                              • Reply to NTQ during fixed term?
                                Wright76
                                It's perfectly simple. Either you accept the tenancy ended as a result of the section 21 or don't.

                                By taking the keys back and control of the property you are somehow accepting the surrender. Now, if you have no written notice from the tenant or deed of surrender your most definitely accepting...
                                22-08-2017, 09:59 AM
                              • S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                Because the poor old OP of THIS THREAD has seen it derailed by a long but nevertheless valid debate/argument/discussion about the interpretation of law, I've started a new thread because the discussion has raised some questions I'd like answers to.

                                Say I have a tenant, whose AST started...
                                18-08-2017, 05:52 AM
                              • Reply to S21 and refunds
                                tatemono
                                er... perhaps pedant would be more apropros ...
                                22-08-2017, 09:39 AM
                              • Tenants reporting damp issues in flat
                                james99
                                Hi,

                                I rent out a modern / purpose built ground floor flat which I've owned for c15 years and lived in it myself up until the last few years when I have rented it out. Never had any issues with damp when I was living there or with past tenants, however, the current tenants have reported...
                                16-08-2017, 16:53 PM
                              Working...
                              X