Dear David/RLA,
Further to our previous correspondance with you, please see the full situation as laid out below:
A tenancy was signed for a fixed term of 12 months from 30th November 2009.
At the time of signing the contract, a Section 21 Notice was issued to the tenants stating that the Landlord was providing the requisite 2 months Notice to repossess the property after 29th November 2010.
This Notice was not acted on, and so the contract became a Periodic Tenancy, with no changes.
The Landlord has asked for the property to be returned to him on 2nd September, 2011.
We advised this to the tenants, on 1st July, 2011, and sent a new Section 21 Notice, which was incorrect (Notice has to be served to expire on a rent payment date, and so the tenants argue that they do not have to leave until 30th September).
Tenants responded: The issue would appear to be whether the notice served on the original tenancy lapses or becomes an implied term of the periodic tenancy. Our advised interpretation of section 21 suggests that this is not the case and that the notice lapsed with the original tenancy.
We spoke to the yourselves who advised that “there is nowhere within the Housing Act that gives a Section 21 Notice a shelf-life” and that the original Notice would only lapse if A) rent increased, B) there was a formal renewal of the lease or C) tenants received written confirmation that they can stay longer – none of which has occurred.
However, the Tenants also stated:
This position would appear to be supported by your section 21 notice, served on 1 July 2011, which was served as of that day without reference to any preceding notice, implying that the previously executed notice was no longer valid, as per our advice.
Do they have a point here – even if our Section 21 Notice of 1st July was incorrectly served?
Sorry to ask again but we want to understand our position before trying to explain to both Landlord and Tenant. With thanks in advance for your advice
