PDA

View Full Version : s.21 - Optional SoD?



stresshead
24-01-2009, 18:59 PM
At the back of my AST there is a Notice Requiring Possession under section 21. This was done through a South London A who I shall refer to as D&G. After reading through hundred's of posts on the matter here, I have a feeling it is actually invalid - for a start it's dated 16th Feb 0008, so is a full 2 millennia off!

Anyway, I thought that perhaps some of you might be interested in what I think is a bit of an underhand way for D&G to go about things.

At the very bottom of the notice:

*Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:

At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........


Now to me it seems a bit like D&G has stuck a S.21 on the back of the AST in the hope that T will not know what it is/raise any questions about it, but on the offchance that they do, D&G can just 'advise' T to go for option one (as though T is being provided some special right!)

Interestingly, D&G did not make us delete either of the alternatives, so presumably the notice actually means nothing at all? Or, as I suspect D&G could have just deleted the first alternative on their own copy should they have wanted to use the notice???

D&G are obviously relying on T's ignorance to serve SoD S.21s - had the notice not been invalid for many other reasons, this would have worked with us as we signed without asking any questions and D&G did certainly not volunteer any info about the notice having anything to do with eviction.
So, I don't really have a question as such, just thought I would share my experience to let other Ts (and LLs) know about this practice - for LLs who like to serve SoD S.21s surely this is not going to work?

Lawcruncher
24-01-2009, 21:01 PM
I did think of starting the "Shot himself in the foot letting agent of the year awards" but there would be far too many candidates.

I have expressed the view elsewhere (though not everyone agrees with it) that a S.21 notice ought not to be served until after the tenant has gone into occupation.

Preston
24-01-2009, 21:27 PM
At the back of my AST there is a Notice Requiring Possession under section 21. This was done through a South London A who I shall refer to as D&G. After reading through hundred's of posts on the matter here, I have a feeling it is actually invalid - for a start it's dated 16th Feb 0008, so is a full 2 millennia off!

Anyway, I thought that perhaps some of you might be interested in what I think is a bit of an underhand way for D&G to go about things.

At the very bottom of the notice:

*Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:

At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........
Signed...........................Date............. .....Time........


Now to me it seems a bit like D&G has stuck a S.21 on the back of the AST in the hope that T will not know what it is/raise any questions about it, but on the offchance that they do, D&G can just 'advise' T to go for option one (as though T is being provided some special right!)

Interestingly, D&G did not make us delete either of the alternatives, so presumably the notice actually means nothing at all? Or, as I suspect D&G could have just deleted the first alternative on their own copy should they have wanted to use the notice???

D&G are obviously relying on T's ignorance to serve SoD S.21s - had the notice not been invalid for many other reasons, this would have worked with us as we signed without asking any questions and D&G did certainly not volunteer any info about the notice having anything to do with eviction.
So, I don't really have a question as such, just thought I would share my experience to let other Ts (and LLs) know about this practice - for LLs who like to serve SoD S.21s surely this is not going to work?

Hi

I think you might be right that the notice is invalid, but its not clear from your comments what the two alternatives are?

Preston

Ruth Less
24-01-2009, 21:34 PM
Yes I was confused what they wanted deleted by *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:. I did wonder if

At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

is for information only and the action is here:

I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

In which case I'd guess the tenant is to delete one of I or We as it says I/We.

SoD = Sword of Damocles presumably.

Also I thought the deposit needs protecting before a S21 can be served.

stresshead
24-01-2009, 23:51 PM
Hi

I think you might be right that the notice is invalid, but its not clear from your comments what the two alternatives are?

Preston

It's not clear on the notice either. There are no bulleted/numbered options just those two sentences. I took the options to be sentence one and sentence two, but after reading Ruth Less's post, I'm now thinking that sentence one was just info and the options were actually: 1) 'I' or 2) 'We'


Yes I was confused what they wanted deleted by *Note: Delete the inapplicable alternative:. I did wonder if

At least TWO MONTHS notice must be given requiring possession of any premises let as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy before it takes effect (Housing Act 1988 S.21)

is for information only and the action is here:

I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and confirm that this has been served upon at the time of signing of the Tenancy Agreement.

In which case I'd guess the tenant is to delete one of I or We as it says I/We.

SoD = Sword of Damocles presumably.

Also I thought the deposit needs protecting before a S21 can be served.

Yes SoD = Sword of Damocles, and yes deposit does need to be protected before serving, but apparently, LL does not normally serve S.21 notices when dealt with directly - in this instance, A was involved as a 'finder' and we signed the agreement and were given keys in presence of A not LL. It's standard practice for A to serve SoD S.21s, even though they obviously don't know how to do it properly (or don't care), but can rely on T's ignorance to get away with it.

Originally, I believed our deposit was protected on the same day we signed the contract, but I actually misread the information we were given - it was received by LL on the same day but wasn't actually protected for another two weeks. So my guess is that the S.21 would be invalid for that reason alone.

stresshead
25-01-2009, 10:01 AM
I think Ruth Less is correct - the applicable alternatives are 'I' or 'We'. After Googling, I have found other S.21s, which (being a lot clearer than mine) lead me to suggest that this is what was intended. Normally, an asterisked note refers to something asterisked in the above text, right? On ours, the only other asterisk on the notice is way above the 'information for tenants section' and refers to the date of the tenancy:

Which you hold as tenant(s)
*(on the 15 February 2009)

It would have been helpful if the 'alternatives' were asterisked instead of the date of end of the fixed period...which I still cannot understand why is asterisked at all as there are no other notes at the bottom.

At least I cleared it up, thanks Ruth Less!