Does service of S21 notice remove need for T's N to Q?

[Lawcruncher]

Since the service of a S.21 notice does not bring an AST to an end, what is the justification for the often asserted proposition that if a landlord serves a S. 21 notice and the tenancy has become periodic the tenant need not serve notice to quit to bring the tenancy to an end?

[Paul_f]

The tenant can leave at anytime without any further liability to rent once a S.21 has been served and it is periodic or the fixed term has ended. They don't have to stay the length of your Notice which landlords often think is the case so that probably answers your question.

[agent46]

The tenant can leave at anytime without any further liability to rent once a S.21 has been served and it is periodic or the fixed term has ended. They don't have to stay the length of your Notice which landlords often think is the case so I think that answers your question.

No it does not!

You really should stop repeating this nonsense as it is utterly irresponsible.

Legal argument (which Paul F didn't have an answer to) on this point, is contained in this thread here: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ad.php?t=10959

[Lawcruncher]

But what is the basis for Paul F's view?

[agent46]

But what is the basis for that view?

I think you know the answer

But have a read of this thread here anyway: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ad.php?t=10959

[agent46]

But what is the basis for Paul F's view?

I'm not sure. If you read the other thread you will see that I asked him to back up his arguments, but (as usual) he stayed well clear.

[Lawcruncher]

Had a quick look at the thread. Perhaps you can clarify one point. I think you said that the tenant can leave at any time after the S 21 notice expires. If you did, why is it that the tenant can leave after, but not before, the expiration of the notice?

[House]

At a guess it's because the landlord has stated he wants possession after the notice expires not before otherwise he might have served it earlier.

Do you have any case law in this regard agent or jeffrey?

Is there a difference for instance in the tenant leaving the day after the notice and say 3 years after the notice!

[agent46]

Had a quick look at the thread. Perhaps you can clarify one point. I think you said that the tenant can leave at any time after the S 21 notice expires. If you did, why is it that the tenant can leave after, but not before, the expiration of the notice?

I can't recall off the top of my head, but I imagine that my reasoning was as follows: the s.21 notice, in that it states "the LL requires possession after [date]" amounts to an offer to surrender after the date of expiry and the tenant, in giving up possession accepts that offer. Further or alternatively, the LL is estopped from holding the tenant to a further period of possession as this would be contrary to his expressed desire to possess the property after the date of expiry of the notice.

[agent46]

Is there a difference for instance in the tenant leaving the day after the notice and say 3 years after the notice!

That's a good point.

Thinking "out loud", off the top of my head here and counter-arguments are welcomed.......I think that if the tenant leaves on the date of expiry of the s.21 notice they should be OK, but if T remains in possession, then as the tenancy has still not ended in the proper fashion (ie: by order of the court), and they have not accepted the LL's offer to surrender, another SPAST may arise and, if so, T would need to serve a NTQ. Alternatively, T could argue that the words "the LL requires possession after [date]" amounts to an open-ended offer to surrender at any time after the date of expiry, which he accepts by returning the keys at a time of his choosing. The LL could, of course, counter-argue that T, by remaining in possession after the date of expiry, has, in effect, made a counter-offer which extinguishes the LL's offer to surrender and T is therefore himself estopped from leaving without serving NTQ.

I am by no means 100% confident about the above arguments, but I cannot see any holes in my arguments in the other linked thread concerning T leaving before expiry of the s.21 notice. As always however, I'm happy to be proved wrong by reasoned arguments....