PDA

View Full Version : Notice requiring possession



recap
01-04-2009, 18:22 PM
Hi all,

We have just recieved today a notice requiring possession of the porperty we are living in at the moment. We moved in last August (2008) after choosing the property through an agent. We do not understand why we have been given this notice, we pay the rent on time, we pass the house is inspected every 3 months.

Are we entitled to know why this notice has all of a sudden been issued?

neiljones
01-04-2009, 18:31 PM
Hi,
As far as i know they do not have to give a reason, for giving you the notice. i was given one in Feb 2009. i know how you feel.

recap
01-04-2009, 18:47 PM
Thanks neiljones, yeah gutted absolutely!!!

jta
01-04-2009, 18:50 PM
Sometimes landlords issue the notice so, if there is a problem in the future, they do not have to issue one then, because they have already issued it and allowed the 2 month period to pass, they can then go straight on to court action. They do not have to give a reason. It is important that you know it is not a notice to quit, but merely tells you the landlord will require possession after a particular date.

Or your landlord may want to move back in.

Why not ask him, you have nothing to lose.

jeffrey
02-04-2009, 10:23 AM
We have just recieved today a notice requiring possession of the porperty we are living in at the moment. We moved in last August (2008) after choosing the property through an agent. We do not understand why we have been given this notice, we pay the rent on time, we pass the house is inspected every 3 months.

Are we entitled to know why this notice has all of a sudden been issued?
What Notice form is it? Does it mention any of the following sections of the Housing Act 1988?
s.8
s.21(1)(b)*
s.21(4)(a)*
*- in these cases, did L protect your AST deposit?

recap
02-04-2009, 19:15 PM
Thank you all for replying.

Panic over!

There should have been a covering letter with the Section 21. The covering letter would have informed us that the agent issues these notices just to cover themselves as the tenancy agreement is coming to an end in June. It would have gone on to inform us that we will then be on a monthly agreement.

So we do not have to move out. We can sleep happy tonight.

Again thank you all!

kikuyu
02-04-2009, 19:21 PM
All's well that ends well. Ahhhh!

mind the gap
02-04-2009, 19:32 PM
Thank you all for replying.

Panic over!

There should have been a covering letter with the Section 21. The covering letter would have informed us that the agent issues these notices just to cover themselves as the tenancy agreement is coming to an end in June. It would have gone on to inform us that we will then be on a monthly agreement.

So we do not have to move out. We can sleep happy tonight.

Again thank you all!

And the moral of this story (for LLs and letting agents) is...?

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 01:53 AM
Thank you all for replying.

Panic over!

There should have been a covering letter with the Section 21. The covering letter would have informed us that the agent issues these notices just to cover themselves as the tenancy agreement is coming to an end in June. It would have gone on to inform us that we will then be on a monthly agreement.

So we do not have to move out. We can sleep happy tonight.

Again thank you all!
I'm glad to hear you don't have to move yet but do be aware that the S21 notice will remain valid as you are going to continue on a periodic tenancy. This means that you have now had your two months notice and should the landlord wish you to leave he does not need to serve you notice again. After the two months are up he can, whenever he likes even months or years later, get on with the next stage of evicting you which is to apply to court for possession. So long as you are aware of that (it's nicknamed the Sword of Damocles).

I would not accept this and ask for a written assurance that the S21 will not be used but I doubt they would do that as after all the S21 notice was served for a reason. Ask yourself and them why did they serve the notice, how does it just cover them and in what way? Issuing the notice just to cover themselves is placatory tosh, you do need to understand what it really means for you - if you do nothing it means your right to two months notice will be spent regardless of how good a tenant you have been.

Search for Damocles in the forum to find out more.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 02:11 AM
And the moral of this story (for LLs and letting agents) is...?
Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord :D

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 05:36 AM
Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord

?:confused: The way your answer is expressed deprives it of obvious meaning, I'm afraid. What are you on about?

What I meant by 'The moral of the story (for LLs) is ...' was this: Think twice before the summary service of a section 21 notice when you do not actually require possession at a particular time, as it may serve only to panic your tenants and cause ill-feeling - with or without a letter to explain that it's a 'routine' procedure. There are lots of 'routine procedures' which are nonetheless unpleasant. Like the treatment of ingrowing toenails, or having one's ears syringed.

However, even as I write this, I am beginning to experience something of a sense of foreboding/doom. The last thing I want is to unleash another tirade about section 21 notices, since the subject has been variously dissected (by agent46 and LC) or clubbed to death (by others) recently, and it would be good to talk about something more exciting. Like having one's ears syringed?

Mars Mug
03-04-2009, 06:31 AM
What I meant by 'The moral of the story (for LLs) is ...' was this: Think twice before the summary service of a section 21 notice when you do not actually require possession at a particular time, as it may serve only to panic your tenants and cause ill-feeling - with or without a letter to explain that it's a 'routine' procedure. There are lots of 'routine procedures' which are nonetheless unpleasant. Like the treatment of ingrowing toenails, or having one's ears syringed.

As you say this has been discussed to death, but I would like to say that I very much agree with the quote above. If I were a tenant, regardless of how the notice is wrapped up in cosy words, I would still see it as weakening my position.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 16:34 PM
?:confused: The way your answer is expressed deprives it of obvious meaning, I'm afraid. What are you on about?

What I meant by 'The moral of the story (for LLs) is ...' was this: Think twice before the summary service of a section 21 notice when you do not actually require possession at a particular time, as it may serve only to panic your tenants and cause ill-feeling - with or without a letter to explain that it's a 'routine' procedure. There are lots of 'routine procedures' which are nonetheless unpleasant. Like the treatment of ingrowing toenails, or having one's ears syringed.

However, even as I write this, I am beginning to experience something of a sense of foreboding/doom. The last thing I want is to unleash another tirade about section 21 notices, since the subject has been variously dissected (by agent46 and LC) or clubbed to death (by others) recently, and it would be good to talk about something more exciting. Like having one's ears syringed?
I think the point you miss is that recap (the OP) did not know what the notice meant. The fact that you as a regular thinks it's been discussed to death is beside the point. As you well know the nature of this forum does mean the same questions get asked by new OPs and repeatedly answered by the regulars.

The Sword of Damocles is no exception and needs a bit of explaining. I hope the OP comes back so he (or she) understands that he will have lost the right to two months notice even though he has been a good tenant for almost a year. My aim is to inform this tenant not entertain you and by suggesting that he searches for Damocles if he wants to find out more I am directing him towards the past discussions! I do not see what less I can do except leave him in ignorance of what the Sword of Damocles means for him (and other tenants). Do you really only want information that suits you passed on? If not perhaps you can stop complaining at me as this is not the first time you have tried to stop me explaining this issue to new OPs.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 16:55 PM
I think the point you miss is that recap (the OP) did not know what the notice meant. The fact that you as a regular thinks it's been discussed to death is beside the point. As you well know the nature of this forum does mean the same questions get asked by new OPs and repeatedly answered by the regulars.

You can (and will, I am sure!) re-iterate your thoughts about section 21 notices until the cows come home, as far as I'm concerned. It's a free country. Whatever floats your boat!


The Sword of Damocles is no exception and needs a bit of explaining. Yes, I think we get the message.


I hope the OP comes back so he (or she) understands that he has lost the right to two months notice even though he has been a good tenant for almost a year. My aim is to inform this tenant not entertain you Don't worry, there was never any danger of your entertaining me:rolleyes:



and by suggesting that he searches for Damocles if he wants to find out more I am directing him towards the past discussions! I do not see what less I can do except leave him in ignorance of what the Sword of Damocles means for him (and other tenants). Do you really only want information that suits you passed on? If not prehaps you can stop complining at me as this is not the first time you have tried to stop me explaining this issue to new OPs.

To be honest, I am almost losing the will to live over the section 21 thing. I couldn't give a monkey's cuss what you tell OPs or what you don't. The issue has been done to death recently, so perhaps we can have a break from it. There now exists a wealth of past threads, to which you have made a huge contribution, for OPs to trawl through if they wish. By the way, this is not an attempt to 'stop' you telling OPs what you think about swords of Damocles, or anything else. That would be pretty futile on an open internet forum, don't you think? Within the bounds of decency, you are free to post what you want. Only the Mods can stop you posting anything.

The point I was making in response to your post (#10), was that it made very little sense. As a seasoned interpreter of nonsense, even I could not decode your meaning. I think it may have been due to your use of the word 'gullible'. Or something. (Tearing out hair) I DON'T CARE ANY MORE!

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 16:58 PM
You can (and will, I am sure!) re-iterate your thoughts about section 21 notices until the cows come home, as far as I'm concerned. It's a free country. Whatever floats your boat!

Understatement of the century!

Don't worry, there was never any danger of your entertaining me:rolleyes:




To be honest, I am almost losing the will to live over the section 21 thing. I couldn't give a monkey's cuss what you tell OPs or what you don't. The issue has been done to death recently., so perhaps we can have a break from it. There now exists a wealth of past threads, to which you have made a huge contribution, for OPs to trawl through if they wish.

The point I was making in repsonse to your post was that it made very little sense. As a seasoned interpreter of nonsense, even I could not decode your meaning. I think it may have been due to your use of the word 'gullible'. Or something. (Tearing out hair) I DON'T CARE ANY MORE!

Look the OP has just had a Sword of Damocles imposed, it is on topic for this thread. I really do not see what your problem is. The root is that the OP didn't read those other threads as happens often here. OPs tend to drop in and ask a specific question and then leave, it is the nature of the forum and happens all the time. I do not think answering these OPs is wrong.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 17:03 PM
Look the OP has just had a Sword of Damocles imposed, it is on topic for this thread. I really do not see what your problem is. The root is that the OP didn't read those other threads as happens often here. OPs tend to drop in and ask a specific question and then leave, it is the nature of the forum and happens all the time. I do not think answering these OPs is wrong.

In a nutshell - which you would have understood if you had actually read my answer above, my problem was that your post #10 made no sense!

That is all.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 17:13 PM
In a nutshell - which you would have understood if you had actually read my answer above, my problem was that your post #10 made no sense!

That is all.
Rubbish, you raised the discussed to death etc. which was uncalled for as I was answering a new OP who had not read the previous discussions.

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 17:14 PM
You can (and will, I am sure!) re-iterate your thoughts about section 21 notices until the cows come home, as far as I'm concerned. It's a free country. Whatever floats your boat!

Yes, I think we get the message.

Don't worry, there was never any danger of your entertaining me:rolleyes:




To be honest, I am almost losing the will to live over the section 21 thing. I couldn't give a monkey's cuss what you tell OPs or what you don't. The issue has been done to death recently, so perhaps we can have a break from it. There now exists a wealth of past threads, to which you have made a huge contribution, for OPs to trawl through if they wish. By the way, this is not an attempt to 'stop' you telling OPs what you think about swords of Damocles, or anything else. That would be pretty futile on an open internet forum, don't you think? Within the bounds of decency, you are free to post what you want. Only the Mods can stop you posting anything.

The point I was making in response to your post (#10), was that it made very little sense. As a seasoned interpreter of nonsense, even I could not decode your meaning. I think it may have been due to your use of the word 'gullible'. Or something. (Tearing out hair) I DON'T CARE ANY MORE!

Who cares about you? The forum is a community, many of whom are noobs. S21 happens to be quite a difficult concept for the non-legal mind to grasp; those who who have twigged have only done so after much (months of) discussion, because it defies the logic of plebeian folk.

We (either of legal knowledge or who have finally understood**) must have infinite patience with those seeking understanding, because it doesn't initially seem to make sense.

i.e. This notice "requires possession" but "does no bring the tenancy to an end". WTF? It is only via a crash course in legalese that Joe Sixpack has any hope in understanding what has just been served.

** Disclaimer: I think I understand, but I might not.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 17:19 PM
Who cares about you? The forum is a community, many of whom are noobs. S21 happens to be quite a difficult concept for the non-legal mind to grasp; those who who have twigged have only done so after much (months of) discussion, because it defies the logic of plebeian folk.

We (either of legal knowledge or who have finally understood**) must have infinite patience with those seeking understanding, because it doesn't initially seem to make sense.

i.e. This notice "requires possession" but "does no bring the tenancy to an end". WTF? It is only via a crash course in legalese that Joe Sixpack has any hope in understanding what has just been served.

** Disclaimer: I think I understand, but I might not.
Thank you. This is exactly why it's had so much discussion, for me it's all been trying to understand in detail exactly what it means.

This has changed over time on the forum as new legal bods have contributed more.

The recent NTQ needed from the tenant stuff from Agent was breaking new ground for the forum from what I've read having followed this closely for years here.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 17:55 PM
For crying out loud... I was not objecting, either to the advice you were giving, or to the fact that you had given it repeatedly and ad nauseam, or to the fact that you have persisted in gnawing away at this topic like a terrier with a rat even after the lawyers have laid it bare. In fact, if you bothered to read the things I have posted myself on the subject, you would know that I actually agree with you about the undesirability of LLs issuing s21s 'for the hell of it'. I agree with you that new OPs will appreciate having things explained to them again and I have made exactly this point in answer to the question about the Moderators conflating threads on the same subject, in the 'Forum Use' forum. Read it and you will see what I mean.

That is not the point I was making.

For the third and final time : in #10, you say:

"Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord"

In the first instance all I said in response to this was that it does not make much sense. I still think that.You never know, if you tell me in plain English what you mean, then I may even agree with you.

All you had to do was re-phrase it so that it does make sense - instead of which, you assume I am 'having a go' at you because of your apparent obsession with s21 notices. Believe me, I couldn't care less!

lorenzo, you too, for reasons I can only guess at, have missed the point by about a mile!

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 17:59 PM
In a nutshell - which you would have understood if you had actually read my answer above, my problem was that your post #10 made no sense!

That is all.
Well I did read the version of your post I quoted but as I see you have changed it so much since ...

The point I was making in post #10:


Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord :D

is that a tenant who accepts the explanation about the S21 Don't worry it's just to cover the landlord is being gullible (naive and easily deceived or tricked). This is because the tenant doesn't then consider what the notice means and thus doesn't realise that his right to two months notice will have disappeared. The tenant doesn't realise that the S21 remains valid once the tenancy has gone periodic and that the landlord is then free to start court proceedings for possession at a later date without the need to serve notice again.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 18:03 PM
For crying out loud... I was not objecting, either to the advice you were giving, or to the fact that you had given it repeatedly and ad nauseam, or to the fact that you have persisted in gnawing away at this topic like a terrier with a rat even after the lawyers have laid it bare. In fact, if you bothered to read the things I have posted myself on the subject, you would know that I actually agree with you about the undesirability of LLs issuing s21s 'for the hell of it'. I agree with you that new OPs will appreciate having things explained to them again and I have made exactly this point in answer to the question about the Moderators conflating threads on the same subject, in the 'Forum Use' forum. Read it and you will see what I mean.

That is not the point I was making.

For the third and final time : in #10, you say:

"Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord"

In the first instance all I said in response to this was that it does not make much sense. I still think that.You never know, if you tell me in plain English what you mean, then I may even agree with you.

All you had to do was re-phrase it so that it does make sense - instead of which, you assume I am 'having a go' at you because of your apparent obsession with s21 notices. Believe me, I couldn't care less!

lorenzo, you too, for reasons I can only guess at, have missed the point by about a mile!
I hope the above post explains my gullible comment.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 18:07 PM
I hope the above post explains my gullible comment.

It makes slightly more sense now, yes, thank you.

In future I would be grateful if you would please read what I have written, before jumping to conclusions about me or about what I am saying.

Thank you.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 18:12 PM
It makes slightly more sense now, yes, thank you.

In future I would be grateful if you would please read what I have written, before jumping to conclusions about me or about what I am saying.

Thank you.
This is way out of line, It was you who were offensive:


?:confused: The way your answer is expressed deprives it of obvious meaning, I'm afraid. What are you on about?

What I meant by 'The moral of the story (for LLs) is ...' was this: Think twice before the summary service of a section 21 notice when you do not actually require possession at a particular time, as it may serve only to panic your tenants and cause ill-feeling - with or without a letter to explain that it's a 'routine' procedure. There are lots of 'routine procedures' which are nonetheless unpleasant. Like the treatment of ingrowing toenails, or having one's ears syringed.

However, even as I write this, I am beginning to experience something of a sense of foreboding/doom. The last thing I want is to unleash another tirade about section 21 notices, since the subject has been variously dissected (by agent46 and LC) or clubbed to death (by others) recently, and it would be good to talk about something more exciting. Like having one's ears syringed?

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 18:14 PM
I think we shall have to agree to differ on this one.

Enjoy your weekend.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 18:15 PM
I think we shall have to agree to differ on this one.

Enjoy your weekend.
Also it isn't the first time you have come after me for discussing the S21, but make it the last as I will not put up with it next time.

jta
03-04-2009, 18:16 PM
Girls, girls, I thought I had explained this to the OP in my post #4. Now sheathe your claws.

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 18:19 PM
Girls, girls, I thought I had explained this to the OP in my post #4. Now sheathe your claws.

Awwwwwe, nothing wrong with a bit of cyberviolence (particularly between girls :D)... all good clean fun.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 18:27 PM
Girls, girls, I thought I had explained this to the OP in my post #4. Now sheathe your claws.
Yes you did but it isn't if there is a problem in the future that the S21 can be actioned. It's can be done for any reason, e.g. the landlord wishing to sell etc. I think a tenant does have to be wary if promised the S21 won't be used if "all goes well" as the S21 is a no fault notice and so any promises like that are meaningless.


Sometimes landlords issue the notice so, if there is a problem in the future, they do not have to issue one then, because they have already issued it and allowed the 2 month period to pass, they can then go straight on to court action. They do not have to give a reason. It is important that you know it is not a notice to quit, but merely tells you the landlord will require possession after a particular date.

Or your landlord may want to move back in.

Why not ask him, you have nothing to lose.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 18:34 PM
jta and lorenzo : yawn.

Ruth Less : I am sorry if you were offended by anything I wrote. That was not my intention. I think, reading back through our posts, that you are unable to appreciate my sense of humour, perhaps because the s21 thing is a cause so dear to your heart; it's often useful to keep a sense of due proportion, however. There are issues about which I feel equally strongly, but which may cause you to think 'She can't see the wood for the trees with that one', if I posted about them at such length. If I do, feel free to comment! Having said that, my personal 'crusades' are not about property, so there is probably less risk of it.

Please don't threaten me, though. (#26). Apart from causing offence in itself, it's pretty pointless. If the Moderators judge my comments inappropriate, they will no doubt remove them. Report them if you wish; I don't honestly think they will judge them offensive enough to delete, but if they do, fine. As I said earlier, I am 'losing the will' with this one.

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 18:47 PM
jta and lorenzo : yawn.
ROTFL! Is feigned boredom analogous to tonic immobility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_immobility

jta
03-04-2009, 18:51 PM
ROTFL!


Whassat mean????

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 18:54 PM
Rolling On The Floor Laughing :)

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 18:55 PM
ROTFL! Is feigned boredom analogous to tonic immobility?



I am too bored to read the link but trust me, it wasn't feigned:rolleyes:

jta
03-04-2009, 18:57 PM
tonic immobility?


Ah! A bit like me after the next refill then! :p

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 18:57 PM
jta and lorenzo : yawn.

Ruth Less : I am sorry if you were offended by anything I wrote. That was not my intention. I think, reading back through our posts, that you are unable to appreciate my sense of humour, perhaps because the s21 thing is a cause so dear to your heart; it's often useful to keep a sense of due proportion, however. There are issues about which I feel equally strongly, but which may cause you to think 'She can't see the wood for the trees with that one', if I posted about them at such length. If I do, feel free to comment! Having said that, my personal 'crusades' are not about property, so there is probably less risk of it.

Please don't threaten me, though. (#26). Apart from causing offence in itself, it's pretty pointless. If the Moderators judge my comments inappropriate, they will no doubt remove them. Report them if you wish; I don't honestly think they will judge them offensive enough to delete, but if they do, fine. As I said earlier, I am 'losing the will' with this one.

My post #10


Tenants can be very gullible to accept that a notice is just to cover the landlord without trying to understand what it means and how exactly it covers the landlord :D

Was meant to be lighthearted, as I had thought your post #8 was


And the moral of this story (for LLs and letting agents) is...?

It is you who has moaned about my discussing the S21 before.

Did you know that the estoppel only works for about a month till recently (I didn't)? I suspect not as the consensus on the forum before was that the tenant was free to leave any time after S21 notice expiry. I get the impression that you aren't following in detail and therefore do not see the changes that have occurred in the the thinking on this from how it was explained in the past by different experts that were around before and the likes of the older documents from Painsmith.

The SoD is a complex subject and the implications are not that clear. The NTQ stuff was breaking new ground which you seem not to grasp. The lack of estoppel is new too and goes against the older documents from Painsmith, so we are all learning (except you who seems to know it all and be bored).

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 18:58 PM
Ah! A bit like me after the next refill then!

Chance would be a fine thing:D

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 19:04 PM
Ah! A bit like me after the next refill then!

:D De rigueur for a Friday evening of course.

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 19:06 PM
I am too bored to read the link but trust me, it wasn't feigned
You should read it. It may prevent you from running over a seemingly dead possum. :D

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 19:14 PM
You should read it. It may prevent you from running over a seemingly dead possum.

A somewhat remote possibility in rural North Yorkshire, it has to be admitted, but thank you for the warning.

Actually, we had a live one living in our attic in Perth (WA). It did a lot of shuffling and snuffling and thumping around, and at one point we were tempted to evict it. However, since possums were a protected species in Western Australia, we weren't even allowed to serve a section 21 notice on it. Another glaring example of how the law favours tenants - Sword of Damocles, my foot! :D It's a myth!

jta
03-04-2009, 19:18 PM
A somewhat remote possibility in rural North Yorkshire,
It's a myth!

It could have been a mythter!

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 19:19 PM
It could have been a mythter!

Get back to your drug of choice!

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 19:27 PM
A somewhat remote possibility in rural North Yorkshire, it has to be admitted, but thank you for the warning.

Actually, we had a live one living in our attic in Perth (WA). It did a lot of shuffling and snuffling and thumping around, and at one point we were tempted to evict it. However, since possums were a protected species in Western Australia, we weren't even allowed to serve a section 21 notice on it. Another glaring example of how the law favours tenants - Sword of Damocles, my foot! It's a myth!
Neither are likely in North Yorkshire, but there is a difference between the antipodean possum that squats in your attic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possum and the northern hemisphere "playing possum" possum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum, of which I warn about.

PS The most effective eviction notice is rose buds, a cat trap and a trip to the country. Rachman rules in Oz :D

agent46
03-04-2009, 19:32 PM
Did you know that the estoppel only works for about a month till recently (I didn't)? I suspect not as the consensus on the forum before was that the tenant was free to leave any time after S21 notice expiry. I get the impression that you aren't following in detail and therefore do not see the changes that have occurred in the the thinking on this from how it was explained in the past by different experts that were around before and the likes of the older documents from Painsmith.



Ruth - whilst I appreciate that you've taken my arguments about s.21/NTQ/estoppel on board, please don't attribute a level of certainty to the arguments that I do not feel they warrant.

I posted what I believe may well be the outcome of a hypothetical case if the point was properly argued by counsel in front of a judge who has sufficient time to consider the interplay between HA 1988 s.5 and s.21, the common law on NTQ and the equitable doctrine of estoppel. However, that doesn't mean that a different outcome is possible, especially if one or both parties represent themselves, and/or the case is listed as a 5 minute wonder at 355pm on a hot Friday afternoon. In addition, as I've said, I argued from principle without properly researching the matter. In summary, until such time as there is an appellate decision on the issue, or someone unearths one, it is probably best to hedge any advice with the words 'may', 'might', 'could' etc.

My twopenn'orth on the spat which has gone on in this thread..... I can understand MTG's frustration - so many arguments on this forum arise out of misunderstandings which are due more to syntactical or grammatical defects in a post rather than a real difference of opinion, so a little more exactitude of language would go a long way. And I can also understand her despair that once again, with respect to s.21 notices, we seemed to be gearing up to re-invent the wheel for the eleventymillionth time.

Having said that, I also think that you have a valid point when you say it is important to put newbies in the picture, either by way of writing the advice anew, or simply directing them to relevant threads. Given the frequency with which the same or substantially similar questions crop up, I do think that this forum needs a more readily accessible stock of collated threads, or concise user-friendly statements of the law on hot topics such as s.21 notices, SoD, s.8 G 8, 10 & 11, TDP and many others I can't be bothered to list. Either that, or there should be a banner headline at the top of the forum asking noobs to do a search before posting, and informing them that they should only post a question if they require clarification, or if they have a novel point. I've seen similar things on other forums, and it works quite well because regular contributors are able to answer most questions with "Do a search!". As a consequence, those regulars are then able to concentrate their time and mental resources on the truly difficult issues.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 19:34 PM
Neither are likely in North Yorkshire, but there is a difference between the antipodean possum that squats in your attic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possum and the northern hemisphere "playing possum" possum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum, of which I warn about.

PS The most effective eviction notice is rose buds, a cat trap and a trip to the country. Rachman rules in Oz :D

It was pointed out to us (by Western Australians) that the number of roses bushes in Perth is ridiculous, given their need for large quantities of water.

Cat trap? Don't like the sound of that...

Interesting stuff. I've learnt a thing or two on this thread (but not about the main topic!)

lorenzo
03-04-2009, 19:45 PM
Cat trap? Don't like the sound of that...

All very humane http://www.traps.com.au/cattraps.htm

'cept the feral cats are usually administered lead aspirin. Possums a jolly trip 10 miles down the road.

Not us though, we used to feed them.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/139599007_f33f40296c.jpg

jta
03-04-2009, 19:45 PM
That's interesting Agent, I have noticed though that the Posters do like the personal touch in a direct answer to their question. Generic answers to most of the repetetive problems could help a lot of people. They would also be something for the rest of us to refer to in case of memory loss. I can feel that coming on now. :D

jta
03-04-2009, 19:46 PM
Cat trap? Don't like the sound of that...



Trevor? is that you?

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 20:13 PM
Ruth - whilst I appreciate that you've taken my arguments about s.21/NTQ/estoppel on board, please don't attribute a level of certainty to the arguments that I do not feel they warrant.

I posted what I believe may well be the outcome of a hypothetical case if the point was properly argued by counsel in front of a judge who has sufficient time to consider the interplay between HA 1988 s.5 and s.21, the common law on NTQ and the equitable doctrine of estoppel. However, that doesn't mean that a different outcome is possible, especially if one or both parties represent themselves, and/or the case is listed as a 5 minute wonder at 355pm on a hot Friday afternoon. In addition, as I've said, I argued from principle without properly researching the matter. In summary, until such time as there is an appellate decision on the issue, or someone unearths one, it is probably best to hedge any advice with the words 'may', 'might', 'could' etc.

My twopenn'orth on the spat which has gone on in this thread..... I can understand MTG's frustration - so many arguments on this forum arise out of misunderstandings which are due more to syntactical or grammatical defects in a post rather than a real difference of opinion, so a little more exactitude of language would go a long way. And I can also understand her despair that once again, with respect to s.21 notices, we seemed to be gearing up to re-invent the wheel for the eleventymillionth time.

Having said that, I also think that you have a valid point when you say it is important to put newbies in the picture, either by way of writing the advice anew, or simply directing them to relevant threads. Given the frequency with which the same or substantially similar questions crop up, I do think that this forum needs a more readily accessible stock of collated threads, or concise user-friendly statements of the law on hot topics such as s.21 notices, SoD, s.8 G 8, 10 & 11, TDP and many others I can't be bothered to list. Either that, or there should be a banner headline at the top of the forum asking noobs to do a search before posting, and informing them that they should only post a question if they require clarification, or if they have a novel point. I've seen similar things on other forums, and it works quite well because regular contributors are able to answer most questions with "Do a search!". As a consequence, those regulars are then able to concentrate their time and mental resources on the truly difficult issues.
Cheers agent. I have been tagging these threads Damocles and then directing newbie OPs to search for Damocles. Newbie OPs do need to be given a potted explanation or else they won't realise what they are searching for and why they should bother.

While the tenant's need for an NTQ and landlord's estoppel length may be open, that the S21 remains valid indefinitely on a periodic tenancy and can be actioned at any time is well established. The latter is all I originally said on this thread, along with a recommendation the OP search for Damocles. The only reason I posted again was as due to MTG's post #11 which was uncalled for IMO and without it the thread would have ended there.

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 20:23 PM
That's interesting Agent, I have noticed though that the Posters do like the personal touch in a direct answer to their question. Generic answers to most of the repetetive problems could help a lot of people. They would also be something for the rest of us to refer to in case of memory loss. I can feel that coming on now. :D
A generic answer could also be modified over time as thinking changes in the light of new information and therefore the current thinking would be easier to keep track of.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 20:29 PM
Er...methinks I am a prophet new inspired!

Posted earlier this evening on 'Forums User Guide' before this debate even kicked off:


I don't think it's a huge 'problem' as such, although I agree that endless queries about mould can be a little tedious. But the forum is self-regulating in that members who ask questions which have been asked before, will generally be directed to use the search facility or given a link to a useful previous thread.

My concern is that it's actually quite rare for new queries on a topic to be identical to previous ones - there is usually some slight variation somewhere along the line - and the new query gets mixed up with the old one. It makes it more complicated to answer them.

What might be more useful is for someone to compile a list of the 10 most common queries on RLQ (mould, section 21 notices, section 8 notices, etc) and the most useful threads which address them - accessible by a quick link.

mind the gap
03-04-2009, 20:35 PM
All very humane http://www.traps.com.au/cattraps.htm

'cept the feral cats are usually administered lead aspirin. Possums a jolly trip 10 miles down the road.

Not us though, we used to feed them.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/139599007_f33f40296c.jpg


Brilliant. Our kids loved that book, 'Possum Magic', too.

Don't the possums just come back if you take them 10 miles down the road?

Ruth Less
03-04-2009, 20:38 PM
Brilliant. Our kids loved that book, 'Possum Magic', too.

Don't the possums just come back if you take them 10 miles down the road?

And another thing, why is it acceptable to put so many joky posts in? Yet the serious posters who were on topic and trying to help to OP get dumped on by the same people who are happy to trash the thread with well off topic joke posts. After all there is a take a break forum.

Mars Mug
03-04-2009, 21:46 PM
And another thing, why is it acceptable to put so many joky posts in? Yet the serious posters who were on topic and trying to help to OP get dumped on by the same people who are happy to trash the thread with well off topic joke posts. After all there is a take a break forum.

I took a break by not reading the last four pages of this thread :(

recap
06-04-2009, 14:13 PM
Thank you one and all for your contributions to my question.

I am a relatively newbie to this forum, I have in the past posted questions on tenancy rights, but I did not expect the type of conflict that appears to have been generated by my latest question.

For this I appologise for not searching the database for possible answer to my question. I was not aware that the serving of a s21 was also nicknamed the Sword of Damocles or I would have searched for an answer under its nickname.

I am aware now that my notice period will expire at the beginning of June, I do not feel that - at this moment in time or in the not to distant future - that my LL will take the next step to evict me as they did stress that they wanted a longterm tennant for up to or over 10 years. They did say that they wished there was some sort of long term tennancy agreement for up to 10 years. I do not think I would sign it if there where one, even as a newbie I understand the implications this could lead to.

jeffrey
06-04-2009, 14:25 PM
Thank you one and all for your contributions to my question.

I am a relatively newbie to this forum, I have in the past posted questions on tenancy rights, but I did not expect the type of conflict that appears to have been generated by my latest question.

For this I appologise for not searching the database for possible answer to my question. I was not aware that the serving of a s21 was also nicknamed the Sword of Damocles or I would have searched for an answer under its nickname.

I am aware now that my notice period will expire at the beginning of June, I do not feel that - at this moment in time or in the not to distant future - that my LL will take the next step to evict me as they did stress that they wanted a longterm tennant for up to or over 10 years. They did say that they wished there was some sort of long term tennancy agreement for up to 10 years. I do not think I would sign it if there where one, even as a newbie I understand the implications this could lead to.
You are certainly correct about the deviation from topic!
MODERATOR: please fix the thread, to carve-off the non-topic diatribe (into a "Take A Break" thread?)

Mars Mug
06-04-2009, 14:42 PM
Jeffrey, sorry to add to the diatribe, but you just hit 15,000 :)

lorenzo
06-04-2009, 14:50 PM
You are certainly correct about the deviation from topic!
MODERATOR: please fix the thread, to carve-off the non-topic diatribe (into a "Take A Break" thread?)
Just don't touch the possum stuff, as it was about eviction (a related subject), we were very much on topic. :cool:

Ruth Less
06-04-2009, 17:12 PM
Thank you one and all for your contributions to my question.

I am a relatively newbie to this forum, I have in the past posted questions on tenancy rights, but I did not expect the type of conflict that appears to have been generated by my latest question.

For this I appologise for not searching the database for possible answer to my question. I was not aware that the serving of a s21 was also nicknamed the Sword of Damocles or I would have searched for an answer under its nickname.

I am aware now that my notice period will expire at the beginning of June, I do not feel that - at this moment in time or in the not to distant future - that my LL will take the next step to evict me as they did stress that they wanted a longterm tennant for up to or over 10 years. They did say that they wished there was some sort of long term tennancy agreement for up to 10 years. I do not think I would sign it if there where one, even as a newbie I understand the implications this could lead to.

Hi recap, I'm glad you came back so that you now realise your notice period will expire at the beginning of June. So long as you are happy that your landlord won't go on to action the S21 (or if he does that you won't be entitled to notice) then all is fine. I guess that still leaves the question of why the S21 was served in your case.

Interesting also that the landlord saying he wants a long term tenant etc as yours has, that leads the tenant to ignore the S21 notice, doesn't in the end prevent the landlord from actioning the S21. Again this is different to the older conclusions from several years ago on the forum.

PS: It's not the serving of the S21 that's nicknamed the Sword of Damocles. The serving of an S21 is fine.

The Sword of Damocles nickname only applies to S21s that are served when the landlord has no intention of actioning them any time soon and so he serves the S21 along with some hint the tenant can stay. That is when they are served as a precaution so that if the tenant misbehaves in future or the landlord wants to sell, or for whatever other reason, the landlord can get on with the next stage of evicting the tenant without having the inconvenience of giving them another two months notice. I suppose the name comes from the uncertainty the tenant is left in, not knowing if or when the S21 will be actioned.