PDA

View Full Version : Section 21 struck out!! Help!



sidfletcher
14-12-2011, 18:02 PM
Good evening - all help greatly appreciated. And I'll stick strictly to facts.
Tenancy started 30th April, 2011.
Fixed term section 21 notice giving 2 months' notice served by hand on 12th September within fixed term to expire 13th November.
Proceedings for possession lodged at court 18th November.
Judgement received today saying that the claim was struck out - it should have started later than 29th November.

But surely this is for a periodic notice 21 - ie for a section 21 served when the tenancy was periodic, when I agree that it should be the last day of the period of a tenancy.

But mine was served in the fixed term to expire after the fixed term had ended - and I believed 2 months' notice was all that was required.
If I'm wrong, what on earth is the difference between a fixed term section 21 and a periodic notice section 21?

Many many thanks

Snorkerz
14-12-2011, 18:37 PM
NO, I think the judge is saying you should have submitted your claim (which you lodged 18 November) no earlier than the end of the fixed term - which they calculated as 29 November.

It is obvious that they have a month missing in their calender - unless it was a 7 month fixed term?

Write to the court immediately appealing the decision, and if this delay costs you mney, write separately to the court manager - I had a similar claim (not possession) where I received an ex-gratia payment due to their muck up.

PaulF
14-12-2011, 20:43 PM
This judge seems very confused and looks as though he or she has applied the ruling for a periodic tenancy when it appears to have been served correctly during the fixed term.

I think we have assumed it was for a fixed term of 6 months although OP doesn't say.

Snorkerz
14-12-2011, 20:47 PM
This judge seems very confused and looks as though he or she has applied the ruling for a periodic tenancy when it appears to have been served correctly during the fixed term.

I think we have assumed it was for a fixed term of 6 months although OP doesn't say.OP states the problem was with the date the claim commenced, not with the date of expiry.

PaulF
14-12-2011, 21:08 PM
Whoops! So it was!