Is Section 21 (1)(a) valid

[Duck]

Hi

I have a copy of a Section 21 notice that my agent served on my tenants.

It is headed:

"NOTICE Under Section 21 (1)(a) of the HOUSING ACT 1988"

again in the notice it is stated:

"This notice is given under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Housing Act 1988"

This notice was served within the AST term and expired 1 month into the periodic tenancy.

Should this notice have been entitled Section 21 ( 1 ) ( b ) if so, is this one valid?

Regards.

[Grampa]

This looks like a s21 notice that a agent has cobbled together which is very risky.

If a s21 is served during the fixed term a S21(1)b is used and the 2 months notice can end outside (but start inside) the fixed period into a periodic period and there is no requirement for it to end on a certain day as long as 2 months notice is given, it is served correctly and any deposit if taken protected correctly.

But the s21 has to be correct and if the agent has stated a and not b I may be tempted to just go with it unless it has only just been served then if so do another correct one. It would be upto the judge on the day and if the tenant went to the council or shelter they may put a defence in.

But the notice also has to have certain prescribed information which is:

If the tenant or licensee does not leave the dwelling, the landlord or licensor must get an order for possession from the court before the tenant or licensee can lawfully be evicted. The landlord or licensor cannot apply for such an order before the notice to quit or notice to determine has run out.

A tenant or licensee who does not know if he has any right to remain in possession after a notice to quit or a notice to determine runs out can obtain advice from a solicitor. Help with all or part of the cost of legal advice and assistance may be available under the Legal Aid Scheme. He should also be able to obtain information from a Citizen’s Advice Bureau, a Housing Aid Centre or a rent officer.

If it hasn't got that as well start again.

[Duck]

Thank you Grampa

The notice does contain the prescribed information that you state, word for word, and the deposit is correctly protected.

When I noticed the s21( 1 ) ( a ) heading, I thought it was not normal so I "googled" it and received not one "hit" which was a worry.

Best regards.

[Carryon Regardless]

Let's face it, as the 2 notices are, other than the points you have noted, identical. it's an easy mistake to make and I've done it myself.

Bloody silly having 2 notices to allow for more confusion anyway in my view.

As Grampa, if you're not going to lose time on the repossession serving the correct notice is a no brainer really.

My notices actually say if the notice is to be served within or after the fixed period, if yours is the same the T can easily see for himself if the notice isn't the correct one, if they still have a copy.

[Grampa]

About 6 or 7 years ago I was using a s21 that was generic that didn't state one or the other just said Section 21 and the first eviction I ever did was with one of these and it sailed through even though it was defended.

The trouble with the county courts is you do get some silly rulings and it also depends on what side of the bed (or whose bed) the judge gets out of.

[Duck]

Hi Cor,

The notice does state: Notice Requiring Possession / Fixed Term Tenancy. My point is that it was titled "s21 1 a" and not "s21 1 b". I'm not getting confused with the "S21 4 a". My agent has effectively invented a 3rd s21 and as it refers to section 21.1.a of the Housing Act 1988 (which does not mention 2 months notice) I wondered if it would be effective. I must add, another one has been served now, correctly titled.