Section 21 Notice

[Timhm]

I've been renting my flat for a year and a half in 6-month intervals (through a letting agency but the landlord is managing it, if that makes sense) and I've just had a renewal notice through from the letting agents as my tenancy is up for renewal soon. But this time I've been served with a section 21 notice, whereas the last time I wasn't. Is this normal? Am I being paranoid? The letter is the standard 'please let us or the landlord know if you want to renew...' spiel but then this LA seem happy to use boilerplate letters for everything (and I thought that you didn't need an s21 if the tenancy was coming to an end anyway).

I wouldn't normally give it much thought but a few months ago I had the LL in fixing a fungal problem which he did a good job on, but he did seem slightly irritated that I hadn't taken preventative action (which I probably could have, if I had had the relevant knowledge at the time). Is he trying to get rid of me?

[dellboy]

I've been renting my flat for a year and a half in 6-month intervals (through a letting agency but the landlord is managing it, if that makes sense) and I've just had a renewal notice through from the letting agents as my tenancy is up for renewal soon. But this time I've been served with a section 21 notice, whereas the last time I wasn't. Is this normal? Am I being paranoid? The letter is the standard 'please let us or the landlord know if you want to renew...' spiel but then this LA seem happy to use boilerplate letters for everything (and I thought that you didn't need an s21 if the tenancy was coming to an end anyway).

I wouldn't normally give it much thought but a few months ago I had the LL in fixing a fungal problem which he did a good job on, but he did seem slightly irritated that I hadn't taken preventative action (which I probably could have, if I had had the relevant knowledge at the time). Is he trying to get rid of me?

Hi,

It's pretty much standard practice these days - I get one each year and have been renewing for seven years. Don't read anything into the Section 21 if you also have an offer to renew the contract; he's just making sure that the statutory laws don't kick in if you don't renew.

[Planner]

he's just making sure that the statutory laws don't kick in if you don't renew.

If you are refering to a periodic tenancy, then it will 'kick in' regardless of the s.21.

I would suggest o/p, that the s.21 is a poorly veiled threat that if you do not renew you will be out on you ear as the s.21 would instantly become void if you chose the alternative of signing another contract.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Planner

[Timhm]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'll keep it in mind and try to keep my options open

[sleepwello'nights]

If you are refering to a periodic tenancy, then it will 'kick in' regardless of the s.21.

I would suggest o/p, that the s.21 is a poorly veiled threat that if you do not renew you will be out on you ear as the s.21 would instantly become void if you chose the alternative of signing another contract.

I don't think it does. The section 21 notice terminates the tenancy. The options then become:

Action can be taken by the LL to regain possession

A new tenancy agreement can be entered into if both you and the LL wish.

The LL can let you stay without entering into a new tenancy in which case it becomes a statutory periodic tenancy.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I usually issue a S.21 notice before the tenancy expires as a matter of course. It's then a case of agreeing with the tenant if they would like to enter into a new tenancy. It gives me a bit of certainty that the property will be rented for another 6 or 12 months.

I'm advised that it's just good practice

[LettingsLady]

I thought that you didn't need an s21 if the tenancy was coming to an end anyway.

You don't need to give notice for the tenancy to end on the expiry date but the landlord does.

Some landlords don't mind going periodic but others insist on another fixed term and so for whatever reason this time perhaps he doesn't want to revert to a periodic tenancy. He needs to give you at least 2 months notice ending no sooner than the expiry of the fixed term.

[Planner]

I don't think it does. The section 21 notice terminates the tenancy.

No. A landlord has no power to unilateral terminate a tenancy. A periodic will arise if the tenant remains in occupation after the fixed term expires (which is actually what you say further on in your post..... someone confused?)

Edited July 6, 2009 by Planner

[LettingsLady]

No. A landlord has no power to unilateral terminate a tenancy. A periodic will arise if the tenant remains in occupation after the fixed term expires (which is actually what you say further on in your post..... someone confused?)

I don't think sleepwello'nights is confused at all.

Tenancies are mutually agreed contracts and so if sleepwello'nights does not want to revert to a periodic contract and has served the correct S.21 notice to the tenant then surely he/she will just go to court for an eviction? It doesn't take that long and he/she doesn't have to give a reason.

Isn't that the case for any S.21 notice - if a tenant chooses to ignore it then the LL will have to go court? If he/she had agreed a periodic tenancy (or not served notice) and then changed his/her mind he/she would then have to give another 2 months notice and wait until that expired before he/she could go to court.

Sorry but isn't that what sleepwello'nights said?

[sleepwello'nights]

I don't think sleepwello'nights is confused at all.

Tenancies are mutually agreed contracts and so if sleepwello'nights does not want to revert to a periodic contract and has served the correct S.21 notice to the tenant then surely he/she will just go to court for an eviction? It doesn't take that long and he/she doesn't have to give a reason.

Isn't that the case for any S.21 notice - if a tenant chooses to ignore it then the LL will have to go court? If he/she had agreed a periodic tenancy (or not served notice) and then changed his/her mind he/she would then have to give another 2 months notice and wait until that expired before he/she could go to court.

Sorry but isn't that what sleepwello'nights said?

Thank you LettingsLady, that is exactly what I meant. Your explanation is phrased far more eloquently.

[Planner]

I don't think sleepwello'nights is confused at all.

Tenancies are mutually agreed contracts and so if sleepwello'nights does not want to revert to a periodic contract and has served the correct S.21 notice to the tenant then surely he/she will just go to court for an eviction? It doesn't take that long and he/she doesn't have to give a reason.

Isn't that the case for any S.21 notice - if a tenant chooses to ignore it then the LL will have to go court? If he/she had agreed a periodic tenancy (or not served notice) and then changed his/her mind he/she would then have to give another 2 months notice and wait until that expired before he/she could go to court.

Sorry but isn't that what sleepwello'nights said?

No. Sleepwello'nights said 'I don't think it does. The section 21 notice terminates the tenancy'

This statement is incorrect. A s.21 notice does not terminate a tenancy.

Sleepwello'nights then went on to state as one of his three resultant options that the tenant may 'stay without entering into a new tenancy in which case it becomes a statutory periodic tenancy'. This is the obviously confused and contridictory part of the post as sleepwello'nights had already concluded that the s.21 notice had 'terminated the tenancy'. i.e. he was suggesting that a periodic tenancy could arise out of 'nothing' .

So, Sleepwello'nights & lettingslady;

1) Do you think that a s.21 notice brings a tenancy agreement to an end?

2) Do you think that s.21 notice stops a periodic tenancy arising?

3) Do you think a periodic tenancy is a mutually agreed contract?

4) Assuming your answers to the above happen to be, incorrectly, Yes, Yes and Yes, what conctractural arrangement (or lack of) do you consider is in place between the terminition of the tenancy by your s.21 and your obtaning of a court order to evict the tenant?

Edited July 7, 2009 by Planner

[LettingsLady]

No. Sleepwello'nights said 'I don't think it does. The section 21 notice terminates the tenancy'

This statement is incorrect. A s.21 notice does not terminate a tenancy.

Sleepwello'nights then went on to state as one of his three resultant options that the tenant may 'stay without entering into a new tenancy in which case it becomes a statutory periodic tenancy'. This is the obviously confused and contridictory part of the post as sleepwello'nights had already concluded that the s.21 notice had 'terminated the tenancy'. i.e. he was suggesting that a periodic tenancy could arise out of 'nothing' .

So, Sleepwello'nights & lettingslady;

1) Do you think that a s.21 notice brings a tenancy agreement to an end?

2) Do you think that s.21 notice stops a periodic tenancy arising?

3) Do you think a periodic tenancy is a mutually agreed contract?

4) Assuming your answers to the above happen to be, incorrectly, Yes, Yes and Yes, what conctractural arrangement (or lack of) do you consider is in place between the terminition of the tenancy by your s.21 and your obtaning of a court order to evict the tenant?

I really think you are missing the point.

I've never said that you are wrong or confused so please don't make this personal. My argument is that rather than quoting the Housing Act verbatim (people can after all look this up) you might want to explain to posters what happens 'in practice' when they seek advice.

Most people involved in lettings understand that on the coming to an end of a fixed term AST a statutory periodic tenancy arises.

It is clear (to me)however, from his/her post that Sleepwello'nights knows this too.

Ok, so in answer to your question 1......assuming that a valid Notice has been served and the tenant moves out then YES the tenancy is brought to an end.

If, however the tenant chooses (usually when they are seeking council accommodation) not to leave and the Court has to make an order for possession then NO the tenancy is not brought to an end. As they say - possession is 9/10ths of the law!

Question 2. As above YES or NO depending on the tenants actions.

Question 3. NO........but it is better for the tenant if this end result is mutually agreed - because if it is not and it's not what the landlord wants then ultimately the tenant will be evicted. For whatever reason - say if sleepwello'nights had a fixed rate mortgage and NEEDED a fixed term and the market had tenants available then he would be in a position to make a choice.

Surely you can see that the correct answer for both Q1 and Q2 could be either 'yes' or 'no' depending on the actions of either party. Incidentally just because a Court Order ends a tenancy on a specific date the tenant might still not move out! However, regardless of what the law states the majority of tenants leave the property when they receive a valid Notice to do so. In fact the only Notice that has ever been ignored in my office is a Section 8.

[sleepwello'nights]

This statement is incorrect. A s.21 notice does not terminate a tenancy.

Sleepwello'nights then went on to state as one of his three resultant options that the tenant may 'stay without entering into a new tenancy in which case it becomes a statutory periodic tenancy'. This is the obviously confused and contridictory part of the post as sleepwello'nights had already concluded that the s.21 notice had 'terminated the tenancy'. i.e. he was suggesting that a periodic tenancy could arise out of 'nothing' .

So, Sleepwello'nights & lettingslady;

1) Do you think that a s.21 notice brings a tenancy agreement to an end?

2) Do you think that s.21 notice stops a periodic tenancy arising?

3) Do you think a periodic tenancy is a mutually agreed contract?

4) Assuming your answers to the above happen to be, incorrectly, Yes, Yes and Yes, what conctractural arrangement (or lack of) do you consider is in place between the terminition of the tenancy by your s.21 and your obtaning of a court order to evict the tenant?

Well, I understand the practical implications of my assertions. But now I am confused. As I understand it a notice under Section 21 of The Housing Act is used to give the tenant notice that the fixed term of the tenancy has expired and the Landlord wishes to regain possession of the property. I take this to mean that the tenancy will end on the expiration of the notice. If the tenant does not vacate the property the Landlord cannot regain possession without obtaining a Court Order. Are you saying that if that is the case then the tenancy ends on the date the Court Orders the tenant to vacate the property. If the tenant does not leave on that date then the Landlord will have to notify the court that the tenant is in breach of the order and request bailiffs evict the tenant. In which case the tenancy ends at the time the tenant is evicted.

When exactly does the tenancy end? Or are we merely arguing semantics. In which case you may well be more technically correct by asserting that the period between the expiry of the fixed term and the date the property is vacated is still a tenancy albeit not one mutually acceptable to both the Landlord and tenant.

Can you rephrase the three options I suggested to more precisely reflect what the statute means.

[Te Mata]

Planner is correct.

But either way, the S21 removes the LLs obligation to give 2 months notice, because he has already given it (via the s21 at the beginning of the contract).

The LL may then go straight to court as soon as contract expires to get a possession order.

Under the same circumstances, I would move out at the end of the fixed term without notice. In fact I am in the same circumstance.... except the muppet LL doesn't know s21 is not valid.

Unless the LL actually wants you out, it's just not cricket IMO. Any SoD LL can go f00k themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[Planner]

I really think you are missing the point.

I've never said that you are wrong or confused so please don't make this personal. My argument is that rather than quoting the Housing Act verbatim (people can after all look this up) you might want to explain to posters what happens 'in practice' when they seek advice.

Most people involved in lettings understand that on the coming to an end of a fixed term AST a statutory periodic tenancy arises.

It is clear (to me)however, from his/her post that Sleepwello'nights knows this too.

Ok, so in answer to your question 1......assuming that a valid Notice has been served and the tenant moves out then YES the tenancy is brought to an end.

If, however the tenant chooses (usually when they are seeking council accommodation) not to leave and the Court has to make an order for possession then NO the tenancy is not brought to an end. As they say - possession is 9/10ths of the law!

Question 2. As above YES or NO depending on the tenants actions.

Question 3. NO........but it is better for the tenant if this end result is mutually agreed - because if it is not and it's not what the landlord wants then ultimately the tenant will be evicted. For whatever reason - say if sleepwello'nights had a fixed rate mortgage and NEEDED a fixed term and the market had tenants available then he would be in a position to make a choice.

Surely you can see that the correct answer for both Q1 and Q2 could be either 'yes' or 'no' depending on the actions of either party. Incidentally just because a Court Order ends a tenancy on a specific date the tenant might still not move out! However, regardless of what the law states the majority of tenants leave the property when they receive a valid Notice to do so. In fact the only Notice that has ever been ignored in my office is a Section 8.

I really think your missing the point (or more acuratly as per susual, answering your own point!)

I dont take it personally. The way I see it is that something called lettingslady has typed a reply to something called planner, possibly from the otherside of the world, so nothing personal in that.

My post 3 was clear none 'law' quoting advice to the o/p that a s.21 served at the same time as a letter asking do you want to renew is a obvious threat i.e. sign up or we will have you out. It was you, lettingslady who got your oar in at post 8 to muddy the waters (it is a public forum after all).

It was clear to me that Sleepwell'onights knows a periodic arises after a fixed term, I have even acknowledged that he says this! The confusion arises from the intial statement which cant then lead on to his subsequent options.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Planner

[Planner]

When exactly does the tenancy end? Or are we merely arguing semantics. In which case you may well be more technically correct by asserting that the period between the expiry of the fixed term and the date the property is vacated is still a tenancy albeit not one mutually acceptable to both the Landlord and tenant.

Not really arguing semantics. The question of 'when does the tenancy end' is obviously a very important one!

A s.21 notice is just the first step in a process towards obtaining a court order to end the tenancy, it neither ends the tenancy in itself, or gives the tenant 100% certainty (or even 50% certainty) that the landlord intends to end the tenancy. After service of a s.21 the tenancy as before, remains in place until the tenant moves out or a judge grants a court order.

The only power to end a tenancy lays with a tenant or a judge.

So, it wasnt you three options I had an issue with, it was the statement that a s.21 ends a tenancy agreement

[LettingsLady]

as per susual, answering your own point!

I dont take it personally. The way I see it is that something called lettingslady has typed a reply to something called planner, possibly from the otherside of the world, so nothing personal in that.

That is exactly what I mean. When I said before that the S.21 was not necessarily invalidated by a discussion about a new fixed term you bit my head off. I like to look at different scenarios and possible outcomes that's all. I've never said you're wrong have I? You on the other hand have said that you don't like my style of posting.

I didn't say don't take it personally - I said don't MAKE it personal and you have done it again.

Why didn't you just say to Sleepwello'nights 'only if the tenant leaves'. We - I think have just served to make people confused!

Aside from the lettings debate (that is very interesting) you chuck in throw away comments about people that I personally think are unnecessary. As you say it's an internet forum and so you can say what you like.

[Planner]

That is exactly what I mean. When I said before that the S.21 was not necessarily invalidated by a discussion about a new fixed term you bit my head off. I like to look at different scenarios and possible outcomes that's all. I've never said you're wrong have I? You on the other hand have said that you don't like my style of posting.

I didn't say don't take it personally - I said don't MAKE it personal and you have done it again.

Why didn't you just say to Sleepwello'nights 'only if the tenant leaves'. We - I think have just served to make people confused!

Aside from the lettings debate (that is very interesting) you chuck in throw away comments about people that I personally think are unnecessary. As you say it's an internet forum and so you can say what you like.

I said that sleepwellonights was confused, your response was that you didnt think he was. The implication was that I was therefore wrong.

I will revise that sentance for you;

I dont make it personal. The way I see it is that something called lettingslady has typed a reply to something called planner, possibly from the otherside of the world, so nothing personal in that.

In terms of 'why didnt I say to Sleepwello'nights only if the tenant leaves' - whats that got to do with the price of fish? it only complicates matters further because if a s.21 is served a a tenant leaves it doesnt necessrily mean that the tenancy ends, you will have to add an additional variable of 'when does the tenant leave'. This is just you answering your own point..... again.

My statement that 'A s.21 does not end a tenancy' is a nice, clear, correct, statement. You are the one that has caused the confusion in this thread lettingslady with all your unecessary 'fluff'. I dont even know why we are continuing to discuss it as you have already said you agree that everything I have said is correct.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Planner

[LettingsLady]

I said that sleepwellonights was confused, your response was that you didnt think he was. The implication was that I was therefore wrong.

I will revise that sentance for you;

I dont make it personal. The way I see it is that something called lettingslady has typed a reply to something called planner, possibly from the otherside of the world, so nothing personal in that.

In terms of 'why didnt I say to Sleepwello'nights only if the tenant leaves' - whats that got to do with the price of fish? it only complicates matters further because if a s.21 is served a a tenant leaves it doesnt necessrily mean that the tenancy ends, you will have to add an additional variable of 'when does the tenant leave'. This is just you answering your own point..... again.

My statement that 'A s.21 does not end a tenancy' is a nice, clear, correct, statement. You are the one that has caused the confusion in this thread lettingslady with all your unecessary 'fluff'. I dont even know why we are continuing to discuss it as you have already said you agree that everything I have said is correct.

We are clearly not going to agree on this.

A section 21 had been served and so if the tenant leaves on the expiry of S.21 then the tenancy ends.

The 'fluff' as you call it is real life.

[Planner]

We are clearly not going to agree on this.

A section 21 had been served and so if the tenant leaves on the expiry of S.21 then the tenancy ends.

The 'fluff' as you call it is real life.

Correct. Who said any different?

Apologies if your answering yet another of your own points?