Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Beware The Sword Of Damocles


Te Mata
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can they really issue a S21 from the outset and allow it be enforced. Would it actually stand up in court?

Yes, provided it's valid (2 months notice, and correct dates given). A valid S21 technically becomes invalid only when a new fixed term tenancy is created to follow the possession date given. That's really the crux of the problem, because once the fixed term has ended, the LL could bring possession proceedings at any time and the tenant is effectively living by the LL's sufferance.

Question though, if you moved out dead on six months "in response to the S21" on a twelve months lease, would you be liable for remaining six months....?

Assuming there is no break clause, then yes: you'd be in breach of contract. LL can sue for the outstanding rent. An S21 notice to regain possession at the end of the fixed term doesn't release the tenant from their contract.

IANAL, yada yada...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for the replies so far.

Another question...

If the s21 notice is issued after an AST goes periodic, can the tennant move out, without penalty, at any time before the possession date?

According to my last letting agent (v. good and honest, with no s21 tricks) we could have moved out at our convenience at any time once the genuine s21 issued (we had gone periodic ages before). They treated the s21 possession date as a FINAL date.

Now this seems sensible to me, and if the legislators are going to change the law with respect to ASTs, I recommed this as a possibility. The landlord would trade certainty for certainty, and the playing field would be even.

A use-it-or-lose-it-type arrangement would be too complex, imho.

Anyway, I am thinking about how to react to the s21. I know some people recommend playing dumb, but that only works if the agent is dumb (which I suspect). But once bitten, twice shy and all that, and the agent may be on to any "negotiation strategy", which sounds doubtful in law anyway.

I'd prefer to write and ask the agent to withdraw the s21 notice, or sort me out with a new AST before 12m - 2m. Otherwise I'll leave at 12 months. Also, I'll be writing to my MP for an explanation of this aspect of the law, and for his views on the underlying policy behind it. If it exposes the early s21 practice as "sharp", I might forward to the letting agent.

Views welcome on this too....

Many thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the s21 notice is issued after an AST goes periodic, can the tennant move out, without penalty, at any time before the possession date?

Conventional wisdom holds that you can move out at any time. Me, I'm not so sure, and I won't be until someone points me to a provision in one of the housing acts that says you can do so. Frankly, the LL is unlikely to attempt to pursue you for the last month's rent, as they'll most likely be glad to get early possession, but the safest bet would be to serve a counter-notice -- in my opinion.

...sort me out with a new AST before 12m - 2m. Otherwise I'll leave at 12 months.

Both sensible options.

Also, I'll be writing to my MP for an explanation of this aspect of the law, and for his views on the underlying policy behind it.

I wouldn't waste your ink. Apparently, this is common practice, and I can't see any way it's illegal or even shady -- though I certainly don't approve. Next time, it might be worth asking your proposed agent up front whether they serve an S21 as a matter of course -- just another bit of information to get, along with their fee schedule. If they look desperate for the business, you might use it for leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody mentioned that an S21 is invalid if it is served before the deposit is protected?

In other words, if you get an S21 before you get a notice from the LL stating what scheme your deposit is it, the S21 is invalid.

See Housing Act 2004, 215(1)(a).

Interesting, because we've just agreed a new tenancy, and we've had an S21 before we've even paid the deposit --- although we have paid part of the deposit. I'd like to see them try and enforce that one.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody mentioned that an S21 is invalid if it is served before the deposit is protected?

In other words, if you get an S21 before you get a notice from the LL stating what scheme your deposit is it, the S21 is invalid.

See Housing Act 2004, 215(1)(a).

Interesting, because we've just agreed a new tenancy, and we've had an S21 before we've even paid the deposit --- although we have paid part of the deposit. I'd like to see them try and enforce that one.

Peter

I would have to disagree with this assumption. A section 21 notice served before the deposit is protected is invalid, only if the deposit is subsequently not protected or the 14 day rule not complied with does it become unvalid. You need to read 215(1)(a) along side 213(4) + (6)(a) as the act suggestes.

Edited by Planner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A section 21 notice served before the deposit is protected is invalid, only if the deposit is subsequently not protected or the 14 day rule not complied with does it become unvalid.

No: 215(1)(a) states that "If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme". Sections 213(4) and (6)(a) are not referred to in this clause --- they are referred to in the following two clauses, but not in this one.

Therefore, if a deposit has been paid, and is not being held in a scheme, no S21 can be given. It doesn't make any difference whether the deposit is protected after the S21 is given --- that S21 remains invalid. The LL will have to serve another S21 in order to gain possession.

Section 215(1)(B) states that the S21 is also invalid even if the deposit has been protected but the initial requirements of the scheme have not been complied with --- this is where 213(4) comes in, because that defines what "initial requirements" means.

Section 215(2) states that the S21 is also invalid if the deposit has been protected, the initial requirements of the scheme have been complied with, but the prescribed information hasn't been given to T. This is where 213(6) comes in.

But 215(1)(a) stands independent of 213(4) and (6)(a). It matters not whether the deposit is eventually protected, either within 14 days or not; if an S21 is served before the deposit is protected, then it's invalid.

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No: 215(1)(a) states that "If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme". Sections 213(4) and (6)(a) are not referred to in this clause --- they are referred to in the following two clauses, but not in this one.

Therefore, if a deposit has been paid, and is not being held in a scheme, no S21 can be given. It doesn't make any difference whether the deposit is protected after the S21 is given --- that S21 remains invalid. The LL will have to serve another S21 in order to gain possession.

Section 215(1)(b ) states that the S21 is also invalid even if the deposit has been protected but the initial requirements of the scheme have not been complied with --- this is where 213(4) comes in, because that defines what "initial requirements" means.

Section 215(2) states that the S21 is also invalid if the deposit has been protected, the initial requirements of the scheme have been complied with, but the prescribed information hasn't been given to T. This is where 213(6) comes in.

But 215(1)(a) stands independent of 213(4) and (6)(a). It matters not whether the deposit is eventually protected, either within 14 days or not; if an S21 is served before the deposit is protected, then it's invalid.

Peter

You are still incorrect im affraid, your cherry picking sections of the document, it needs to be reads as a whole.

215(1)(a) does state that "If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme" but it also goes on to state (or) the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit.

The landlord has 14 days to still be in accordance with 215 (1) (b ). Therefore the s.21 would only become invalid after BOTH parts of 215 (1) havent been complied with, thats why its a OR and not an AND between parts (a) and (b ).

So 215 (1) can read EITHER;

215 (1) If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when (a ) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme

OR it can read

215 (1) If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when (b ) the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit. - This wont be known for 14 days, note that one of the initial requirements is protecting the deposit as well as the prescribed information.

See now? they can serve a section 21 AFTER they have complied with TDS (the requirements of the scheme being to protect the deposit and give the prescribed information - thats what 215(a ) says )

OR

they can serve a section 21 before they comply with TDS, but for it to remain valid they have to meet the initial requirements in 14 days, thats what 215 (b ) says (which includes protecting the deposit and the prescirbed information).

I think the mistake you are making is to read 215 (1) ( a) as "has the deposit been protected" and 215 (1) (b ) as "Has the prescribed infomration (initial requirements) been sent". This isnt the case. A common lay-persons mistake though.

Edited by Planner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

215(1)(a) does state that "If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme" but it also goes on to state (or) the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit.

Exactly --- or! So if either (a) or (B) is true, then no S21 can be served!

The landlord has 14 days to still be in accordance with 215 (1) (b ). Therefore the s.21 would only become invalid after BOTH parts of 215 (1) havent been complied with, thats why its a OR and not an AND between parts (a) and (b ).

If it was an AND, I would agree with you. But surely what it means is if either (a) the deposit hasn't been protected or (B) the requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with, S21 can't be served.

It's not a matter of the S21 being "invalid" --- an S21 legally can't be served if either the deposit hasn't been protected or the requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with. In my case, the deposit hasn't been protected, therefore an S21 can't be served.

See now? they can serve a section 21 AFTER they have complied with TDS (thats what 215(a ) says

No it doesn't --- it says they can't serve an S21 before protecting the deposit. I am well aware that they can serve S21 after protecting deposit, but that's not what the law says --- it says that an S21 can't be served before the deposit is protected.

OR they can serve a section 21 before they comply with TDS, but for it to remain valid they have to meet the initial requirements in 14 days, thats what 215 (b ) says.

No it doesn't! It says S21 can't be served if the initial requirements haven't been complied with. The law is not saying when an S21 can be served, it's saying when an S21 can't be served. And if (a) or (B) applies, S21 can't be served. It is not saying that if both (a) and (B) do not apply, S21 can be served.

You are the one who is confused!

If something says

"You cannot be a politician if

(a) you have ginger hair or

(B) you have green eyes"

That means that ginger-haired people can't be politicians, no matter whether they have green eyes or not; and green-eyed people can't be politicians, no matter whether that have ginger hair or not. By your logic, it'd be ok for ginger-haired people to be politicians, provided they had green eyes (or were intending to get green eyes within 14 days). But that is clearly not what it says --- if you've got ginger hair, you can't be a politician. Full stop.

Similarly here; you can't serve an S21 if

(a) the deposit isn't protected or

(B) the initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with.

So if you haven't protected the deposit, you can't serve an S21, no matter what section (B) says --- you are barred from serving S21 on the basis of (a) alone.

If (a) or (B) applies, no S21 can be served. In my case, (a) applies. (B)may apply as well, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't matter --- if either a or b applies, S21 can't be served.

Geddit?

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the mistake you are making is to read 215 (1) ( a) as "has the deposit been protected" and 215 (1) (b ) as "Has the prescribed infomration (initial requirements) been sent". This isnt the case. A common lay-persons mistake though.

You are also confused about the difference between prescribed information and initial requirements. The initial requirements of the scheme are quite different to the need to send the prescribed information to the T within 14 days.

Still, at least you get the prize for the most patronising post --- well done for that, my boy ;-)

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly --- or! So if either (a) or (b ) is true, then no S21 can be served!

But you wont know if (a ) is true until (b ) becomes true - 14 days before (a ) can become true or false!

If it was an AND, I would agree with you. But surely what it means is if either (a) the deposit hasn't been protected or (b ) the requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with, S21 can't be served.

Well it really means what it says on the tin. If (a ) the deposit isnt held in accordance with a scheme or (b ) the initial requirements of that scheme havent been complied with then a section 21 cant be served.

It's not a matter of the S21 being "invalid" --- an S21 legally can't be served if either the deposit hasn't been protected or the requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with. In my case, the deposit hasn't been protected, therefore an S21 can't be served. But theres the key... you wont know if your depsoits been protected for 14 days... thats why they are called the INITIAL requirments and a period of 14 days is given!

No it doesn't --- it says they can't serve an S21 before protecting the deposit. I am well aware that they can serve S21 after protecting deposit, but that's not what the law says --- it says that an S21 can't be served before the deposit is protected. Again you wont no the status of the depsoit for 14 days, so you cant say it isnt protected!

No it doesn't! It says S21 can't be served if the initial requirements haven't been complied with. The law is not saying when an S21 can be served, it's saying when an S21 can't be served. And if (a ) or (b ) applies, S21 can't be served. It is not saying that if both (a) and (b ) do not apply, S21 can be served. Your right it is saying when a s21 cant be served. And it cant be served when the deposit isnt protected - which you wont know for 14 days, or the initial requirements of the scheme haven been complied with - which is deposit protection and required info.

You are the one who is confused! far from it!

If something says

"You cannot be a politician if

(a) you have ginger hair or

(b ) you have green eyes"

That means that ginger-haired people can't be politicians, no matter whether they have green eyes or not; and green-eyed people can't be politicians, no matter whether that have ginger hair or not. By your logic, it'd be ok for ginger-haired people to be politicians, provided they had green eyes (or were intending to get green eyes within 14 days). But that is clearly not what it says --- if you've got ginger hair, you can't be a politician. Full stop. The difference is that you would instantly know if (a ) a person had ginger hair, in the case of (a ) here, you dont for 14 days.

Similarly here; you can't serve an S21 if

(a) the deposit isn't protected or you dont know if its protected for 14 days

(b ) the initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with.

So if you haven't protected the deposit, you can't serve an S21, no matter what section (b ) says --- you are barred from serving S21 on the basis of (a) alone. Thats correct. But you wont know if (a ) hasnt been complied with for 14 days

If (a) or (b ) applies, no S21 can be served. In my case, (a ) applies. (b ) may apply as well, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't matter --- if either a or b applies, S21 can't be served. you dont know if a applies for 14 days

Geddit? :huh: I hope so. If i have to type 14 days again! Remmember the key is to read it as a whole not cherry pick

Peter

I can see this is going to be hard work!

Edited by Planner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are also confused about the difference between prescribed information and initial requirements. The initial requirements of the scheme are quite different to the need to send the prescribed information to the T within 14 days.

Still, at least you get the prize for the most patronising post --- well done for that, my boy ;-)

Peter

Just because im pointing out you are incorrect doesnt mean I am patronsing you. Maybe a public forum is not the best venue to be spending your spare time in if your feeling so delicate.

Im not confused in the slightest about prescribed information and initial requirements. If you take a minute away from nursing your bruised feelings and read my post, you will see I was pointing out that that was your mistake.

Edited by Planner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this is going to be hard work!

I refer you to this thread:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=9807

Looking forward to discussing it further with you there.

Just a note to everyone else: I'm right. If you have received an S21 at the start of your tenancy (before your deposit has been protected) it is worthless.

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer you to this thread:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=9807

Looking forward to discussing it further with you there.

Just a note to everyone else: I'm right. If you have received an S21 at the start of your tenancy (before your deposit has been protected) it is worthless.

Peter

Hope the responses there have satisfied it. To Clarify Landlord can serve s.21 Notice if he has complied with initial requirements, even if deposit not yet protected - i.e. 14 days!!!!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope the responses there have satisfied it. To Clarify Landlord can serve s.21 Notice if he has complied with initial requirements, even if deposit not yet protected - i.e. 14 days!!!!.

Still disagree! I think that LL cannot serve S21 until he has

a) protected deposit, and

B) complied with the initial requirements of the scheme, and

c) given prescribed information to tenant.

The "ands" are nothing to do with the "or" in the Housing Act. What that says is that LL cannot serve S21 if the deposit is not protected or if the initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with. See the LLZone thread for more details!

Beware of confusing (a), (B) and ©. To my mind they are all separate steps; but LL cannot do (B) or © without doing (a).

To some extent, this means that LL cannot immediately serve S21 on T as soon as tenancy starts; he must protect deposit first. Of course, as soon as he has done that (and done (B) and © above) he can then serve S21.

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, provided it's valid (2 months notice, and correct dates given). A valid S21 technically becomes invalid only when a new fixed term tenancy is created to follow the possession date given. That's really the crux of the problem, because once the fixed term has ended, the LL could bring possession proceedings at any time and the tenant is effectively living by the LL's sufferance.

Assuming there is no break clause, then yes: you'd be in breach of contract. LL can sue for the outstanding rent. An S21 notice to regain possession at the end of the fixed term doesn't release the tenant from their contract.

IANAL, yada yada...

asquithea,

quick question, I have never expereince the SoD S21, I am presuming the S21 notice is dated to coincide with the end of the tennacy and not a straight forward two months and your out S21? In which case your only worry is if you enter periods

Would it be fair to say that the only real risk is not having a reasonable amount of time to negociate the new rent/agreement rather than any perceived threat?

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still disagree! I think that LL cannot serve S21 until he has

a ) protected deposit, and

b ) complied with the initial requirements of the scheme, and

c ) given prescribed information to tenant.

Can you tell me in the act where;

a) Protect the deposit - is stipulated? it certainly isnt 215 (a ).

and

c) given the prescribed infomration? where on earth as that appeared from? theres only an a) and b ) in the act neither of which discuss "prescribed information".

Edited by Planner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

asquithea,

quick question, I have never expereince the SoD S21, I am presuming the S21 notice is dated to coincide with the end of the tennacy and not a straight forward two months and your out S21? In which case your only worry is if you enter periods

Would it be fair to say that the only real risk is not having a reasonable amount of time to negociate the new rent/agreement rather than any perceived threat?

Matt

Me either; I'm going from prior discussion both here and over at LLZ, and I'm not legally qualified in any way. Flick back to the first page of this thread for the definition:

Where the s21 becomes the Sword of Damocles is when the LL issues you with an s21 notice RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TENANCY, to expire at the end of your fixed term. This is even when you have taken the tenancy under the understanding that it is a long term arrangement.

The problem with the SoD is that it makes a statutory periodic tenancy risky for both LL and tenant: The LL can begin possession proceedings at any time after the fixed term ends, whilst the tenant can move out without any notice at all leaving the LL with a void. It's an inane concept that serves no one's purposes except the LA, who collect a fee in return for printing a new AST agreement.

As you say, it's basically a lever to use against the tenant at the end of the fixed term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.

Thanks so far for an interesting, if slightly personal, debate on the s21 requirements with respect to deposit protection.

I'm especially grateful to baboonuk for highlighting sections 213-215 of the Housing Act 2004. I have read them with interest and have formed my own initial view as to what they mean.

However, one question for baboonuk. Can you explain how, in your view as I understand it, a landlord could escape s215a (because the deposit has been secured) and yet not escape s215b (because the initial requirements have not yet been met)?

Thanks in advance, your input here is highly valued.

Also, it would be really helpful (to me, at least) if baboonuk and planner declared their legal qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me in the act where;

a) Protect the deposit - is stipulated? it certainly isnt 215 (a ).

If a deposit is held in accordance with an approved scheme, it's protected. If it's not, it's not protected. 215(1)(a) stipulates that before an S21 can be served, the deposit must be held in accordance with an approved scheme. If the LL hasn't submitted the deposit to the scheme or registered the deposit with the scheme (as appropriate) then it's not being held in accordance with an approved scheme and an S21 can't be served.

c) given the prescribed infomration? where on earth as that appeared from? theres only an a) and b ) in the act neither of which discuss "prescribed information".

Ermmm, OK. Try Section 215(2)? "If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with."

Section 213(6) reads:

"(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—

(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and

(B) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord. "

So in layman's terms, unless LL has given prescribed information to T, he can't serve S21.

Ok? Anything else?

Thanks so far for an interesting, if slightly personal, debate on the s21 requirements with respect to deposit protection.

My pleasure. Sorry for the personal stuff --- I like planner really!

However, one question for baboonuk. Can you explain how, in your view as I understand it, a landlord could escape s215a (because the deposit has been secured) and yet not escape s215b (because the initial requirements have not yet been met)?

In my view, the LL has to do two things. He must first of all protect the deposit (this is S215(1)(a)). In other words, he has either to send the deposit to the scheme (for a custodial scheme) or register it with the scheme (for an insurance-based scheme).

Once he has done this, he has to comply with the initial requirements of his chosen scheme. Now, what I don't know is what those requirements are. For example's sake, one might be that he has to pay a fee to the scheme.

Therefore LL can do (a) [send the deposit to the scheme, so they are now holding it] but he must then do (B) [do what the scheme says].

So LL can do (a) without doing (B).

Also, it would be really helpful (to me, at least) if baboonuk and planner declared their legal qualifications.

None whatsoever!

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks baboonuk and planner.

It's probably best we get a handle on what the initial requirements are. Otherwise, imho, it is too early to form a reasonable view.

I haven't got much time at the moment (moving house on Saturday), but will try to dig a bit further on this point if I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks baboonuk and planner.

It's probably best we get a handle on what the initial requirements are. Otherwise, imho, it is too early to form a reasonable view.

I haven't got much time at the moment (moving house on Saturday), but will try to dig a bit further on this point if I can.

It would be good to get a fresh view. Look forward to your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably best we get a handle on what the initial requirements are.

The "initial requirements" are "such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit".

Each scheme may have a set of requirements that the LL has to fulfil when he received a deposit. They could be anything --- for example, LL might be required to turn around three times and touch the floor six times. But it really doesn't matter what these requirements are. You only need to worry about them if the landlord has fulfilled Section 215(1)(a). If he hasn't done this --- i.e. if the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme --- you don't need to worry about (B). The fact that he hasn't done (a) automatically precludes him from serving an S21.

It isn't the case that LL can serve S21 if he's fulfilled 215(1)(a) or 215(1)(B). It's the case that he can't serve S21 if he hasn't fulfilled 215(1)(a) or 215(1)(B). He has to have fulfilled both 215(1)(a) and 215(1)(B) before he can serve S21.

Just think of it like this. LL cannot serve S21 if

a) he has green eyes or

B) he has blue eyes.

Can LL serve S21 if he has blue eyes? No! Can he serve S21 if he has green eyes? No! If his eyes are blue or green, he can't serve an S21.

Now apply that to our situation:

Can LL serve S21 if "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme"? No! Can he serve S21 if "the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit"? No! If "the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme" or "the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit", he can't serve an S21.

Compare the two sets of red writing.

Otherwise, imho, it is too early to form a reasonable view.

But as I say; it doesn't matter what the "initial requirements" of the scheme are. If the deposit "is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme", no S21 can be served.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

I think we should pause for thought. I see what you are saying about the meaning of the word "or", but in the construction of legal documents, there are many rules which non-laywers do not fully understand.

For example, even in lay speak, the word "or" has several meanings. It is probably too hasty to ascribe a single meaning at this stage.

My gut instinct is that all will become clear if we know:

whether a landlord can have secured a deposit without first having met the initial requirements. My feeling is no. Normally, initial requirements come first.

You seem to be saying that he can, but frankly, as much as I smiled, your example of turning around six times and touching the floor really doesn't help here.

We need to understand that the word "or" has several meanings dependent on the context, and legal documents are to be construed to make sense. Can you see what I'm getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to understand that the word "or" has several meanings dependent on the context, and legal documents are to be construed to make sense. Can you see what I'm getting at?

I do see what you're getting at, but isn't it entirely clear that in this case the LL cannot serve an S21 if

a) the deposit is not held in accordance with a scheme or

B) the initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with.

The whole argument boils down to one question. Can a deposit be "held in accordance with a scheme" but not "protected"?

I don't think "or" has that many meanings!

If someone says "I will not eat if the sky is not blue or the grass is not green", then their meaning is obvious. If the sky is not blue, they won't eat. If the grass is not green, they won't eat. If the sky is not blue, it doesn't matter whether the grass is not green; they won't eat. If the grass is not green, it doesn't matter if the sky is not blue; they won't eat.

In our case, it doesn't matter if the "initial requirements of the scheme haven't been complied with"; if the deposit isn't "held in accordance with a scheme", an S21 can't be served.

Peter

Edited by baboonuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.