Greenbank-
It's not bad. I still prefer the Smirk case. And yes, I did spend a day in the High Court arguing about the Smirk case. Sadly there was little smirking. Bloody killjoy Chancery judges. No sense of humour.
-
Of course the landmark decision in Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH really wins the case name contest. I spent hours practising how to say that, and still fucked it up the first time I reffered to the case in open court. Eventually a truce was called, and I, my opposite number, and even the judge referred to it as 'the Brinkibon case'.
-
Ladies’ Hosiery and Underwear v Parker [1930] 1 Ch. 304
I love that.
Reminded me of this ...
Lady Penelope - Take off my dress!
Parker - Yes ma-lady...
Lady Penelope - Take off my underwear.
Parker - Yes ma-lady
Lady Penelope - Parker if I catch you wearing my clothes again there will be trouble!
You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Brommers
not4sale
This is the key. Let's assume that your GF's email was an effective notice to quit. That means that the AST ended on 31st July. However, you carried on in occupation of the property and the landlord carried on accepting rent. The payment of rent and your continued occupation can't (if the GF's email was an effective notice to quit) have been under your existing tenancy. So it must be under a new tenancy, and so an implied periodic tenancy arising through conduct must have arisen - Hyatt v Griffiths (1851) 17 Q.B. 505 and Ladies’ Hosiery and Underwear v Parker [1930] 1 Ch. 304. This wouldn't be a statutory periodic tenancy - it would be an implied contractual periodic tenancy. But it would still be an assured shorthold tenancy under the 1988 Act.
It'd be different if they accepted the money tendered as rent as a payment on account of mesne profits or damages for use and occupation. I'm betting they haven't though.
In that case, since it's a new tenancy, the landlord would have to serve a section 21 notice giving you 2 months' notice. And arguably they'd be in breach of the requirement to provide tenancy deposit protection information at the start of the new implied periodic tenancy, so they'd be obliged to refund any deposit and pay you between one and three times the amount of the deposit under section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004, as amended by the Localism Act 2011. In that case ,they wouldn't be able to serve you with a section 21 notice until they'd provided the prescribed information or repaid the deposit, as a result of section 215(2) of the 2004 Act.
So if they're right, and the notice to quit was effective and the tenancy ended on 31st July 2020, then they're fucked if they've accepted rent without making it clear that the payment is accepted on the basis that it's a payment on account of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation. Proper fucked.
Hopefully the above should give you enough ammunition to write them a fairly punchy letter/email. It would be far better for them if they accepted that the original AST continued and there was no valid notice to quit or it was withdrawn by consent.