Section 21 at the start of a Tenancy??

[J4L]

What are peoples views on this and who DOES issue one from day one?

Is it morally correct to say to the tenant 'you have 6 months and then you're out'

Does it not cast a 'shadow' over the head of said Tenant wondering if they'll be allowed to stay after the 6 months?

Should we all do it?

Should it be allowed?

Why do some do it?

A few questions here to gather some ideas, views on this 'touchy' subject!!!

Gareth

[Simon Dewsberry]

not at all touchy - i know many LL and letting agents who do this as a matter of course - then ask several months (2-4)later if they wish to renew ast or lose prop.

I am not a great fan of "periodic" as my worst case scenario would be to find over 100 tenants(bodies!) within a month so, no , i do not allow this stuation to present itself .............!

]

Simon

[J4L]

So you DO then, I'm taking that as?

[lauralivesartnouveau]

Hi

The RLA and others do advise to do it at the inception of the tenancy the remit behind this as you can slip it in as another document to be signed immediately after issuing the AST.

The reason for this is a section 21 is most effective when issued for the last day of the tenancy and remains valid for several years and the tenant is possibly unaware. After the initial six month period the notice to be issued then becomes a section 21 periodic and there is a possibility in getting the date of notice wrong. This is because the periodic date reflects the payment cycle which may be out of step with the start date of a tenancy. Tenant representatives know this loophole and it’s the first thing they jump on when defending your tenant which can drag the eviction process out by adding an extra couple of months to reissue the correct notice.

However having said all that I don’t issue a section 21 at the start of the tenancy as when a tenant becomes a pain I make a big issue out of serving these documents making them sign a receipt or getting a witness to sign on their behalf. I also tend to serve a section 8 and a CCJ at the same time to add the pressure.

Oliver

[lauralivesartnouveau]

Hi

I should have added that my reason for not issuing section 21 at beginning of tenancy is that if/ when the tenant becomes a pain and you want to get rid In most cases you can do this by simply issuing the 21 notice and they go within a couple of months (esp with added pressure of CCJ). If you say to the tenant I have your notice already please go now their response is take me to court then, which will cost you court fee etc. You will win but it could be more stressful at the end of the day the tenant needs a couple of weeks to find somewhere to go. It’s a matter of what works best for you with your tenants if you get a tenant that digs in and refuses to go then accelerated possession is the only solution and you may wish to serve this immediately. I have never yet regretted not issuing 21 at the beginning

Oliver

[J4L]

The RLA and others do advise to do it at the inception of the tenancy the remit behind this as you can slip it in as another document to be signed immediately after issuing the AST.

Uh-Oh!!!

This can't be ethical, or Legal.

Slipping it in as another document to be signed could be construed as misleading the Tenant or what evere legal jargon you care to put on it.

If the RLA and 'others' advise it, how underhand does that make these organisations and good on the tenant representatives for finding the loophole, Tenants realy do get a bad time of it at times don't they?

[lauralivesartnouveau]

Hi

Its advised to issue at beginning because it is easy and straight forward for the amateur LL to do as there is less risk of getting it wrong.

There are many things that should be explained to the tenants when issuing the AST this could be added into that list.

I actually spend time highlighting the AST main points the main one of which is of course security of tenure for the initial six month period. If you have a savvy tenant they will accept a section 21 at the initial signing of AST as long as you are prepared to reissue the AST every six months.

I personally prefer periodic’s as you only have to wait a couple of months with section 21 instead of many months waiting for the AST to expire.

There are lots of pro’s and con’s on both side of the argument I just stick to what works for me. I have found that its best to confront and respond to a situation that causes you grief by serving notices. That way all of your tenants know you have a clear process if there a pain you evict.

Oliver

[J4L]

Is the s21 then revoked if you issue a further AST or are you suggesting issuing another with it?

[lauralivesartnouveau]

Hi

Once you reissue the AST all previous section 21 notices are revoked because you can only serve notice after a AST has commenced not before.

My advice is to let the old AST expire for as long a period as possible and instead of reissuing a new AST when doing a rent review use the 4a rent increase procedure.

Oliver

[J4L]

What a sensible answer oliver, thanks.

Unlike other retorts I've received today (on another post) it's this sort of advice I'm after really.

It helps build my database of knowledge so I don't make mistakes like other agents appear to all the time, thus giving the majority of LA's a bad name.

[GPEL]

Also remember that if you take a rent payment after the s21 expires it'd be deemed to have been revoked by the landlord. Therefore, if you are considering taking back possession after the end of the fixed period, any rent taken, after s21 notice expires, should be as mesne profit otherwise you'll need to redo the 21. Only a brief explanation but worthwhile considering.

Further info at http://www.estateagencynews.co.uk/reports/...judicus1201.asp