My friend had an assured short-hold tenancy. The period was for one year, the year expired on 28 April 2007. This being the second agreement with the landlord.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord can bring the tenancy to an end by giving not less than two months notice to expire at any time after the end of the fixed term.
She received an unsigned section 21 notice dated 9 March 2007, with an expiry date of 28 May 2007.
I am aware that the notice can give more than two months, but was it valid, because it was not signed, and was served before the end of the fixed term?
If it is invalid, does she have any re-dress against the landlord or the landlord’s agent?
2007-12-29 00:10:36 · 4 answers · asked by Pete J 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
The notice will be valid "only" because it is a "break clause" term. A section 21 notice is supposed to be for ending periodic tenancies however people do use it to serve notice at the outset of a fixed term tenancy in order to speed up the eviction process prior to end of a fixed term. This notice is likely to be valid due to the break clause reason for service. Regarding the dates, the only real way to define the correct procedure for at least 2 months notice served because of a break clause is for this to be challenged in the court.
The housing act 1988 and section 21 notices are used in the UK and a section 21 notice must always be served if ending a periodic tenancy (from landlord).
There is new caselaw to state a section 21 notice need not be signed.
2007-12-30 07:53:17 · answer #1 · answered by minxxywitch 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The rules are that:
- the "expiry date" must be on, or after, the end of the fixed period
- the "expiry date" must (normally) be on the same day of the month as the tenancy was due to end.
It is NORMAL to give notices before the end of the period. In fact, the landlord has given a bit more notice than needed. Indeed, in some areas it's common to give a Section 21 notice at the BEGINNING of the tenancy, expiring at the end of the tenancy, and withdraw it if the tenant has been a good tenant :-)
Provided the notice was clear, it's valid. I don't believe that there's a legal requirement to have a human signature on it.
2007-12-29 00:44:24 · answer #2 · answered by mark_harrison_uk2 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far as the time goes, it would appear to be valid. The signature, depends on where you live, and the laws of that area.
2007-12-29 00:16:01 · answer #3 · answered by Beau R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it sud of been signed and given to her well before it ran out
2007-12-29 00:14:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋