A study of the last 200 instructions we have received from landlords and letting agents has revealed that 62% of the legal Notices served (Section 21 and Section 8) by the landlord are either completely invalid or are at risk of being thrown out of court.
Over the last year, we have encountered an increasing number of problems with Notices served by landlords and agents. As a result, our legal department has carried out a full analysis of our last 200 cases, not only to get a true reflection of how common this is, but also to find out exactly what mistakes are being made. Unfortunately, some landlords and even agents are still making classic errors when drafting and serving Notices.
The top five reasons for Notices being invalidated are:-
- Incorrect expiry dates
- Failure to comply with deposit legislation
- Inaccurate accompanying rent arrears schedules
- The method of how the Notice was served
- Typing errors on the Notice
I understand why some landlords would choose to serve their own Notice as a cost saving exercise however, mistakes in eviction Notices are among the most common reasons for delays and increased costs when a landlord tries to recover possession from a tenant who has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST).
I can’t stress enough that the Notice is the most important part of a possession court case and the slightest mistake can end up costing a landlord significantly more than the cost savings – in extra legal fees, delays and lost rent.
The worst case scenario for a landlord desperate to regain possession of a property is to be three months down the line and find they have to start the whole process all over again, costing them a small fortune in legal fees and lost rent. That’s why in cases where we are not instructed to draft the Notices, we carry out a full ‘health check’ on Notices/legal paperwork, before it is filed at court.
If you have any doubts over the validity of your Notice or eviction case, please get in touch and I will be happy to provide an advice note and make a recommendation on your case.