Notice to leave Home, is a reason required?

[Bonjon]

Did you pay a bond to the landlord? If so and your landlord did not protect it in a tenancy deposit scheme, the Section 21 notice would be invalid anyway. Your landlord would need to protect your bond, THEN serve you with a new section 21 notice giving you another two months notice...

 

After the expiry of the notice, your landlord can then apply for a possession order from the court. For the time it takes to get a possession order to getting an eviction warrant (as you can stay in the property until the warrant for possession has been executed), you may be looking at a further 2 months in the property.

 

Hope this helps!

 

So you feel its right to make the landlord have to go through the courts after serving the correct paperwork?

 

Think how it would feel if the boot was on the other foot, your a landlord, your son/daughter has just been made redundent, lost their house and are homless on the streets, you have a house you could let them have, but the current tennent wont leave even though you have given the correct notice.

 

Its not nice either way but its all above board and TBH 2 months is a long time to find another flat/house.

 

As for council if its just you, you wont get anything better than a hostel or a bed sit.

[kells041082]

Unfortunately BonJon, what is right and what is legal can be two very different things. A landlord must be prepared for these risks.

[kells041082]

As for the council comment, unless you have a priority need, temporary accommodation may not be available. As such, 2 months may not be enough.

[Tuns]

Hi

 

With regards to the section 21 is it dated to end the day before your rent due date i.e.

 

If you moved into the property on the 12th January 2011 and they have served you notice 7 days before your end of your fixed term does the date to vacate on the notice say 11th July 2011 ??

 

From the knowledge i have i believed it to be that it had to run from your rent due date.

 

Hi

 

Just to help clarify this if the Section 21 is served before the end of your fixed term (as in Shaky's case 7 days before) - then it does not have to tie in with the rent date.

 

It needs to be a Section 21 (1) (b) and give at least 2 months notice.

 

If it is served after your fixed term has ended and you are on a rolling (statutory periodic) contract then the notice does have to tie in with a rent date and a Section 21 (4) (a) must be served.

 

Maybe seems like a small difference but you'd be amazed how many times landlords get the dates and technicalities mixed up on S21s only to find they can't get possession and must start the process again!

 

Cheers

 

Tuns

[Douglas J]

So you feel its right to make the landlord have to go through the courts after serving the correct paperwork?

 

Think how it would feel if the boot was on the other foot, your a landlord, your son/daughter has just been made redundent, lost their house and are homless on the streets, you have a house you could let them have, but the current tennent wont leave even though you have given the correct notice.

 

Who decides whether the paperwork is "correct" or not? Of course it's right for the landlord to have to enforce it through the court: it's someone's home you're talking about here.

[Bonjon]

Who decides whether the paperwork is "correct" or not? Of course it's right for the landlord to have to enforce it through the court: it's someone's home you're talking about here.

 

I just feel its immoral to for a landlord to have to fight through the courts to gain his property back, he has given correct notice and is not just trying to kick the OP out, yes its someone's home, but its also someone's house.

[Douglas J]

I just feel its immoral to for a landlord to have to fight through the courts to gain his property back, he has given correct notice and is not just trying to kick the OP out, yes its someone's home, but its also someone's house.

 

Yes, it's the old tension between property rights and human needs. the interests of those who own property would prefer that wealth takes priority. Others believe in human rights.

[Bonjon]

Yes, it's the old tension between property rights and human needs. the interests of those who own property would prefer that wealth takes priority. Others believe in human rights.

 

But as the OP said the landlord needs the property for his own family, maybe the landlord is thinking human rights over wealth??

[Douglas J]

But as the OP said the landlord needs the property for his own family, maybe the landlord is thinking human rights over wealth??

 

It's often a question of timing. It may well be that the landlord would like to rent the house out to family - or friends - or anyone else who doesn't have a secure home. The landlord still doesn't need to prove a reason for ending the tenancy but it does have to be approved by the court. It's a question of impartiality - earlier, i asked who decides if the paperwork is "correct"? The human rights point is that there is a balance between a landlord's property rights (including whom he chooses to install as tenants) and the family's human rights to respect for their family life, which includes their home.

 

Going back to the example of the landlord's family - it's very rare they actually have family members homeless . in any case, the human rights of homeless people don't include the right to make other people lose their homes.

[HeadingNorth]

Yes, it's the old tension between property rights and human needs. the interests of those who own property would prefer that wealth takes priority. Others believe in human rights.

 

Apparently they don't believe in human rights, since they're happy to deprive a human being of property which is rightfully his.