That's helpful, thanks. It was S21, so no money order. The LA is expecting to see a notice of eviction before they can do anything to help me. I've moved / sold most of my possessions, but I'm hanging in there as I'm going to end up sofa-surfing for a while and I don't want to use up all my favours. I will contact the court, I wasn't sure whether they were obliged to notify me if the case had been sent up to the High Court. I'm just curious if this is actually a common thing for landlords to do (and judges to agree) or if they generally just stick with the county court bailiffs.

Hi, I'm currently in the process of being evicted from my rented flat. I contested it for a while as there were plenty of irregularities over the tenancy and the deposit protection, but the landlord got an immediate order for possession about 2 weeks ago now. I was fully expecting him to instruct county court bailiffs right away, but 14 days on, I haven't received a notice of eviction. I rang the County Court Bailliff's office, and they haven't even received an application from the landlord to start that process. I find this a bit strange, I don't understand why he didn't do this right away. I've been reading elsewhere that there's a procedure for possession that involves getting the case moved to the High Court and then instructing High Court Enforcement Officers to carry out the writ. It's my understanding that this is more expensive but much quicker. It's also my understanding that if the landlord goes down this route, I don't get any notice at all until the HCEOs turn up at the door. Is there any way of finding out if this is what's going on here? Is this a common route for landlords to use? Is it true I wouldn't get any notice at all, or any notice that the case was being transferred to the High Court? If I get a few days notice to get my stuff together, then that's fair enough, I'd even send the keys back and save everyone a lot of hassle. What I'm worried about is that I'll just come home one day and find all my stuff on the street. Does anyone think this is likely or have any advice in this situation? Cheers.

Thanks for the advice guys, I guess it's worth advancing the argument that there was a new agreement made in 2009 and see what the judge thinks. BTW previous to 2009 he was paying the water rates, I took over that responsibility post the rent hike. Don't know if that reinforces the argument or not. I've also been looking again at the S21 notice I was sent, and it's very ambiguous to my non-legal eyes, particularly when compared with the unequivocal wording in some of the sample notices I've seen dotted round the web. For example, it doesn't say that possession is required, merely that the landlord intends to apply to the court for a possession order (after the expiry date). Is this sufficient under the legislation? Also the saving clause reads, "This notice expires on [incorrect date ie not end of period of tenancy] or the last day of the period of the tenancy whichever is the later". ie no use of the word "subsequent", so I don't really know which period is being referred to. I don't know if it's allowed under board rules to solicit - offer recommendations like this, but I'd happily pay for a solicitor with specific sector knowledge to give the S21 notice a once-over and see if it is faulty. Any suggestions?

I'm currently on the receiving end of a S21 notice, and I'm trying to find out if I have grounds to contest this. I moved into a flat in 2001. The landlord wasn't really bothered about being a landlord, so he didn't do any of the expected things, like gas certificates or maintenance. TBH this wasn't a problem as the rent was very low, and I'm a pretty practical guy, so I was happy to look after the place, and renovated it from top to bottom. The place is an awful lot nicer than when I moved in. I could go literally 5 years without so much as speaking to him on the phone. He's moved several times without notifying me of a new address, all I've ever had is a mobile phone number. This was the days before deposits had to be protected, so I didn't worry about that. This was a periodic tenancy from the start, not a fixed term that rolled into a statutory periodic tenancy. In 2009 we met and he put the rent up by a small amount. I agreed to this as it was a pretty modest increase. Nothing was written down, definitely no Section 13 notice, but I started paying the higher amount straight away. There was nothing in the original AST about varying the rent. My question is whether this should be regarded as a variation of the old tenancy agreement, or a new agreement. This is significant as if it is a new agreement, then he needed to put the deposit into a protection scheme. If not, then I can't defend the S21 on that basis. At the time I was unaware of the distinction between the two and the implications if our arrangement all went south - as it has done now. What would the characteristics be of a new agreement versus a variation of an old one? How strong is my argument that he should have protected the deposit as we effectively had a new agreement post-2009? Thanks for the help.