Advice from Shelter

[Carryon Regardless]

Some may remember this one

New S21 served, expires on 31st March.

Shelter have again advised and again I don't agree with their advice.

The tenancy commenced 9th July 2010, so their advice is that the notice expires on the 8th April (as it was served during late January). This time they seem to recognise the validity of the saving clause that previously they did not.

However my AST details clearly, so as to remove ambiguity, that rents are paid 'for periods' commencing the 1st of a month till the last day of that month.

I am aware of such confusion as rent payment dates, tenancy commencement dates both of which can become further confused by changes to payment date and renewal of contracts. So to remove confusion I detail a tenancy period to be January, then February and so on ie a complete month as per the calendar.

I have read the legislation that dictates that a rental period is the period that rent is paid for, so my contract clarifies the period.

I can't find that legislation now, any thoughts here appreciated, if only for debate.

We are all aware that Shelter will act to defend the rights of the T. Where they act and advise incorrectly I see this as losing credibility and being confrontational for only negative purpose. Invariably this will result as our disadvantage one way or another.

Shelter, as with other T protection services, have interest in the housing of T's, so do we. This is our business without T's we don't have a business. Why is there so much us and them type conflicts when there should be a common interest?

Whenever we wish to repossess we are perceived to be no more than gangsters out to harass the poor T. Once we have repossessed to continue our business we then need to re let, to T's. That's T's like the ones we have repossessed from. Shouldn't there be recognition that we are likely to have good reason to go to all this effort, stress and expense since we can gain no more advantage than to house to a good T, hopefully?

I rang Shelter, again, to discuss. My thoughts, as said already, that rather than conflict there is benefit to discussion and possibly agreement. The 1st adviser has left, the 2nd on leave so no progress to be made there.

[LLAW96]

See salford cc -v- garner [2004] EWCA Civ 364. This is an old chestnut which has already been decided on by the courts, shelter should know better.

[Carryon Regardless]

Thanks LAW.

Your pointer seems to relate to introductory tenancies and a T moving in before a tenancy has commenced. I'm unable to find anything that relates specifically to defining a tenancy period and therefore the applicable end day applicable from a S21.

[LLAW96]

Its in the judgment, I will cut and paste it. basically trite law that the period of the tenancy can be different from the date on which rent falls due.

[Grampa]

Cor though I see nothing legally incorrect in the way you draw up your tenancy agreements (regarding start date and rent period dates) it may cause you a lot less grief to use a s21(4)(a) that doesnt give a date but has certain wording that gives 2 months notice that falls in line with the rental period.

I use these all the time now and there is no room for error and they (the wording) has been tested in the court of appeal.

[Carryon Regardless]

Thanks Grampa I'm with you on the prevention beats the cure principle.

Here Shelter have viewed my contract and seemingly have only recognised the AST start date ignoring my specific clause detailing the rental period as not utilising this. So many see an easy answer and grab it, laziness in my view.

One advantage of using a date that is applicable and correct is that it draws the attention of a departing T to it.

Expecting a T to understand the wording of a S21 and a saving clause is unrealistic to my mind. I think there is advantage of guiding T's with A,B,C where possible.

It's not possible to overcome the obvious confusion of "This Notice Expires After date" as it's prescribed. Remember the poster that had been advised 'by a solicitor' that as a S21 had expired it couldn't be used ?

As I've said before, and said by Geezah, the law is stupid or keeps the legal profession in business. The Housing Act wants to be replaced not just amended. It should be more clearly defined and more user friendly. The state desires to have a stable population accomodationwise, demonstrated by continually putting more onus on us to continue in housing the abusers. If they made the 'rules' more understandable I believe there would be less abusers using statements like "it'll take you months and cost you thousands to get me out", I've had that one.

[Grampa]

I take your point Cor there is a argument to make it simple and if a dated s21 used on a straightforward contract it would be clearer for the tenant and shelter but as you have found out if you stray from the norm problems can arrise.

One advantage of using my one is the wording is a bit wordy which can mean a tenant thinks it is 2 months notice from receiving it and not from the rent period and can save a few weeks.