MrShed

No no no Magpie. I have been nothing but clear. I would not in any way condone the use of not giving the full notice period UNLESS the tenant behaves unreasonably. I fail to see how this is "wanting it both ways" or in any way unclear....it is being fair to reasonable decent tenants, and giving the scum tenants exactly what they deserve.

After X amount of further damage, both financial and perhaps physical, is caused. I am not saying give the full notice IF the tenant has behaved unreasonably.

You've totally lost me. How does that invalidate all S21 notices? And I think you also miss the point about the words "without prejudice" - these words are there to prevent a served S21 from invalidating any other served notice, such as a prior S21 or S8...nothing else.

Correct, and this is why I totally take your comments on board. What I am saying is that, as a useful tool for evicting ONLY when the tenant has behaved in an unacceptable fashion. If I do use this method(which I am still not saying ) then I would never use it, nor would I condone the use of it, for the circumstances as you have described above, nor any others which are not the tenants fault. I would give the full notice again. But yes, others may not, hence the problem.

I have never said I do follow this practice myself, nor do I intend to do so. However, unless a tenant acts in an irresponsible or unacceptable fashion, what reason would I in fact have to evict them?

I agree Magpie. My only concern in my opinions is from a landlords point of view, and perhaps you underestimate how many dodgy tenants there are it is unfortunate I agree that some landlords(some dodgy, some respectable) feel they have to resort to this method, due to the unscrupulous actions of a few tenants. But, I do agree that there needs to be some change with regards to the law. It should be noted however, that whether an eviction would be successful using an old S21 would involve an element of luck, as it depends on which judge you get handling the case. Many are now increasingly becoming as focused upon the spirit of the law(as you say, this was not the original intention of the law) as well as the letter of the law. And I would like to unequivocally state that I in NO WAY support the use of this "loophole" for ANY purpose other than the speedy eviction of tenants who's behaviour is unacceptable. I am a firm believer in two things. First of all, I believe that the vast majority of both tenants and landlords are respectable, and wish to do what is best(even though many respectable landlords still have too much ignorance of letting law). Secondly, those tenants and landlords who are dodgy and act in a way to bring down the reputation of other tenants and landlords deserve everything they get. Hence my support for this "loophole" for this reason only. And with regards me being a decent landlord, I think that anyone who comes onto forums such as these, and landlordzone, are potentially decent landlords, as they show that they are intending to comply with their legal requirements.

Hey muttley.... Yes burden of proof is with the landlord. However, any evidence you can show to disprove what he is saying will obviously work in your favour. With regards estimates, I would suspect this side of things is up to the landlord also. However, I am not 100% on this.

Heehee little old me? Would just like to say though that I was originally just clarifying the legal point regarding it, as asked by the poster. Any posts made since then are purely my opinion, and opinions will differ on it, and there probably isn't one view that is either right or wrong. To my mind, for balance, you should probably have a timescale set in law, like say 3 or 4 months, after the expiry of the S21, after which time the S21 becomes invalid. This would be a fair compromise.

pms....so that I don't get completely lost....which part of your essay refers to what we are talking about? Sum up your point for me please....hungover today can't be having with reading all that text!

Taking a month and a halfs rent as a deposit is common in the industry, and is merely a prudent step in these days of tenants withholding the last months rent. However, 2 months rent as a deposit is too much, and would legally be considered a premium, which would give the tenants the right to assign the lease without the landlords permission.

Ah ha....yes of course my apologies, that would explain it. Sorry, I always assume England, as that is where I am based! Thanks for the clarification Alba.

There is no legal definition of a furnished property. A general guideline is that if a property is provided as fully furnished then the tenant should not need to spend any money on furnishing the property....it would be fine to live in.

Just do think long and hard, it is a big decision to make. Bear in mind that whilst many moons ago tenants had good security, now they really don't. And also bear in mind that if the predicted house price crash happens, many landlords may try and sell up quickly, leaving you without a home. Let us know what decision you come to. AJ I see what you are saying, but rent is directly based upon house price.....it goes without saying that BTL landlords are still buying properties, and still making a profit on them. House prices rise, rent rises.

In that case, shelter need to change their website :| *EDIT* having read it more, I am extremely concerned that a housing advice organisation are giving such blatently false information. I shall highlight some areas I have the greatest issues with: "If neither you nor your landlord has given notice, your tenancy will renew itself. This will be for the same length of time, unless your tenancy agreement says that it will be for a different period." No it won't, it goes onto a statutory periodic tenancy. "• 40 days if your tenancy is for six months or longer " If you are in the fixed term of your tenancy, you can leave at the end giving no notice at all. "• 28 days if your tenancy is continuing on a month to month basis after the original period has expired." It is one rental period, not 28 days. In practise this would usually be the same, but certainly nowhere near always. I intend to contact Shelter and inform them of this erroneous info. Can you post the link please Alba?

Just to contradict(slightly) what bonnie says....it IS legal to evict over pets, as long as the term is worded correctly. You cannot have a blanket ban on pets, but you CAN ban pets which may be reasonably expected to cause damage to the property, or cause a nuisance. The initial reason whay a blanket ban was made unfair was because it in theory prevented pets such as goldfish etc! It is worth pointing out that although it may be illegal to evict due to certain terms(such as a blanket ban on pets etc) it is perfectly legal to "discriminate" against such tenants prior to a tenancy being taken up. However, if as a tenant you lie about having a pet, children etc and then bring them, expect to be evicted quite speedily on a Section 21! Let us know how you get on tahoma. The landlord having your deposit instead of the agent is of little consequence...it is the landlord you would need to sue anyway. I do hope you push this through small claims, as he really is just laughing at you. His actions regarding the deposit also will make the courts take a very dim view of him, and just strengthens your case even more(if indeed it needed strengthening!).

I find it difficult to believe that the majority of buy to let landlords are doing so at a loss a.j.....interest only mortgages should nearly always be cheaperthan the rental income from said property. Not saying you are wrong, just explaining my reasoning.

Well, my first thought is that renting tends to be more expensive than paying a mortgage....if you were going to do this I would suggest downsizing but still buying rather than renting, otherwise it is not solving your problem.

I would like also to see which advise I have given that is incorrect. I would also like to see where I am up Worldlife's "backside"....I certainly respect DJB, but have no dealings with Worldlife. More to the point, I see no way whatsoever in which I have been personal with you pms, at least not on LLZ...all I have done is contradict some of your incorrect advise. If you really really want to push this with someone, you have truly picked the wrong person. I just do not wish to see this forum degenerate as LLZ has over the last few weeks, due at least in part to your posts. Please post links to exact threads where I have either been sided with the landlord(unfairly), been personal against you, or given incorrect advice, and I shall immediately apologise and retract what I said in said posts. However, I suspect this will not be forthcoming, as such posts I do not believe exist. With regards to incorrect advice, I do not pretend to know everything, nor even a lot, regarding rental law. From my experience, I attempt to help out people as best as I know. I will not always get this right, hence my disclaimer in my signature. However, I do not believe I should be criticised for attempting to help out, even if such good intentions do not always result in the correct answer. I would like to reiterate certain things. First of all, I have in no way got you removed from LLZ forums. You did that yourself when you said you were not posting again. If you have since been banned, this is news to me. All I said on the matter was that you should refrain from making such personal comments. Secondly...bullying I find quite amusing, as I certainly have not been personal, whereas you have been making the most personal posts. As for discrimination....on what grounds? I do not know your age, your race, your religion, where you live, what you do....all I know of you is from your posts. Therefore there cannot possibly be any discrimination. I have never, nor will ever make "one sided posts". I advise on the situation, and the information given to me. If you read all of my posts, here and on LLZ, I am, in the majority(certainly not always) in favour of the tenant. I apologise to other members for such an apparently personal argument being broadcast in public on here. However, I am sure the regulars on here will appreciate my unbiased and fair approach to attempting to advise people with problems, be they landlord or tenant. I am sure you will appreciate therefore that I wish to defend my reputation from being besmirched in this manner.

Prove this please pms. Otherwise retract it.

Good grief. I am going to reply to this one again. You have ZERO, I repeat ZERO basis to report such a thing. Apart from anything else, making such unfounded claims could legally constitute harrassment.

The only reply I am going to make pms. I do not, at all, believe that I know everything or even close to it....an issue raised by Mr Crunch this week proves that. I neither have any problem with controversial posts, as long as they are backed with valid reasoning and a genuine belief that such views are valid. Your posts, however, are simply filled with personal insults, and views that are controversial purely to start a fight with nothing to back them up. And you can tell you have not bothered to read many of the threads other than your problem causing ones on LLZ, as at least 90% of the posts are backing tenants against landlords, not the other way round.

Oh christ pms go away. For future reference all other regulars, PMS is a troll who has "migrated for the spring" from landlordzone forums. And quite frankly pms you are the one "coming onto" this forum, and as usual just blasting away peoples opinions. Anyway, I am not going to justify any more of your insane ramblings with a reply, just as I am not on the other forums.

Sue him. He is extracting the urine now, just take him to court.

In that case Mr Crunch, I stand corrected. Was totally unaware of this, thanks for bringing it to our attention, and my apologies!

Thanks Catch22. Sorry Mr Crunch, just to make myself clear. Should the landlord sign a NEW ast with the tenant, then the tenant will have 6 months security of tenure, regardless of the length of the fixed term. Apologies if this was not clear to start with. And Alba.....where on gods green earth did you get such incorrect information?