SPENCER v. TAYLOR 2013 APPEAL

[Grampa]

SPENCER v. TAYLOR 2013 APPEAL

The tenant in the above case has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the decision made in the Court of Appeal. This means that matter will be in a state of flux until this appeal has been heard.

This has resulted in the advice that landlords and agents should revert back to using the old style S21(4)(a) process until such time as the Supreme Court makes a decision.

[Mortitia]

How does S 21 4 a (or differ from any other S21 process? I always use S21 a or b. We are in trouble is Section 21 is in doubt - it is the only way to guarantee possession.

[Richlist]

I think you need to have read an earlier post to understand the background Mortitia.

I think this is the thread....

[Grampa]

Sorry I should have added a bit more info to the original post. If you carry on using s21(1) b (fixed term) or s21(4) a periodic as we all have been that’s ok.

In a nutshell what the Spencer v Taylor case ruled when it went to the first level of the court of appeal and therefore made it law, the judge stated that a s21(1) b could be used if the tenancy was statutory (not contractual) periodic and the 2 month’s notice didn’t have to fall in line with the rent due date. My understanding is it wouldnt have mattered if you carried on as before either.

This was good news for landlords as it could potentially shave nearly a month of the notice period if you had just missed the rent due day. It would also mean only one type of s21 was needed.