header-logo header-logo

23 October 2008
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Section 21 or bust?

Michael Walsh advises on how to avoid s 21 delays

One of the ways a landlord can seek possession of his property let under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) is by issuing a notice under s 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). A notice can be served under s 21(1) or 21(4), with each being used in different situations. This article looks at the two notices and how landlords can avoid unnecessary delay and a visit to court by complying with some of the strict rules associated with the form of the notices.
Section 21(1) notices

A notice served under this sub-section is subject to fewer restrictions in terms of its content than those served under s 21(4) (which I deal with below). All that this sub-section requires is that the landlord gives the tenant “not less than two months' notice in writing” and that notice must state that the landlord requires possession of the property.

It is common for landlords to serve a s 21(1) notice on their tenants at the beginning of the tenancy and then specify a date by which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll