Some of you out there maybe following with interest the recent of Spencer v Taylor concerning the serving of a Section 21 notice.
As we all know (I hope) there are two types of Section 21 notice, one to be served during a fixed term and one to be served when tenancy is periodic, both required different information to be set out in order for the notice to be correct and woe-be-tied any landlord who served the wrong one or got the dates wrong when he applied to the court for possession.
What Spencer v Taylor shows us is that this previous thinking could now not be required.
The Court of Appeal specified that where there was originally a fixed term tenancy then even if a Section 21 Notice is served after the expiry of the fixed term, the landlord can rely on a Section 21(1) Notice. Therefore, provided that not less than 2 months clear notice is given, a Section 21(1) Notice can be relied on at any time. The role of a Section 21(4) Notice does not become redundant but is only relied upon when being served when the tenancy was periodic from the start
It is thought that this new angle on the serving of section 21s could see more tenants evicted and less possession claims being thrown out of court, but in reality will this really be the case.
In my capacity I still see a good number of section 21 notices that have not been completed correctly by both DIY landlord and letting agents, if some still haven’t grasped the logic of two notices for two different tenancies, Fixed tern & Periodic, can we really expect a sudden influx of Section 21s that reflect the revised understanding from this case.
But of course the main point still exists, that regardless of which section 21 a landlord uses, if he/she has not protected the tenant deposit and given prescribed information to the tenant then any section 21 notice served will be invalid any way.
All we can do is wait, watch and wonder …………
No comments:
Post a Comment