PDA

View Full Version : T wants to retract Notice to Quit- what can L do?



Denebob
19-05-2008, 18:21 PM
Hi there, you have helped me before with dodgy tenants & I'm hoping your pearls will get me through again... here's the deal.

We have tenants of 3 years & they have defaulted about 5 times. Last time we caught him lying to us so we don't trust his word. 1 month into their new contract they default again. (He is a bad communicator, he is seriously ill & off work & he is a mysogynist btw!)

Despite numerous promises to pay, we have had £500 but they still owe £360. On 23rd that will be £960 & 2 months in arrears so I know we can serve a S8 followed by an N5 & N119 in 2 weeks BUT.. in a fit of anger a month ago he gave me notice by e-mail which I accepted also via email. He then realised he had done a stupid thing & his wife was horrified. They asked to retract it & I said we would agree IF they paid... which they did not. So I put an acceptance in writing & gave them their leaving date.

My dilemma is this- Do I still need to serve a S8 if they have given notice? It worries me that they will read the course of action on it & realise they can stay put until they get called to court, rather than have to leave on their notice date. We have not heard from them since we accepted their notice in writing & we have no idea if they are making plans to move or stay put. Negotiations at this stage will be hostile!!!

Esio Trot
19-05-2008, 18:45 PM
Don't forget that you can do a s8 with ground 8 (a mandatory ground) once there is two months unpaid rent. Do this the very next day that they fall foul of this ground (which by my reckoning will be 24th May, a Saturday on the Bank Holiday weekend. If you serve then by hand (with an independent witness) service will be deemed on Tuesday 27th. Thus the earliest date for court proceedings will be Wednesday 11 June.

Sadly, the tenants notice is not worth the ether it took to send it to you. Even if they didn't retract it, if they didn't leave when their notice was up you would still need to go to court to enforce any notice you have given.

House
19-05-2008, 19:09 PM
If a tenants notice has expired and the landlord hasn't accepted any rent from the tenant after the notice has expired could a landlord try and get possession based on the former tenant now being a trespasser? I usually advise that the LL still needs to give normal notice etc but i was just wondering.

attilathelandlord
19-05-2008, 19:12 PM
Dream on! You'll have to go the 2 months in arrears route or an appropriately served s.21. If they are that bad, never, ever give tenants a new contract.

Still, I bet you won't do that again. It's a lesson learned.

Denebob
19-05-2008, 19:42 PM
Dream on! You'll have to go the 2 months in arrears route or an appropriately served s.21. If they are that bad, never, ever give tenants a new contract.

Still, I bet you won't do that again. It's a lesson learned.

I know I know. Although they had lied, we did eventually get our rent before. I guess it was better the devil you know when we stupidly renewed.

Thanks Esio for laying it out in dates for me. Yes I have the S8 ready to serve. I am hesitant because right now I don't think they understand their rights & we have played on the fact that they have given notice. I'm pretty sure they think it is binding so the S8 risks opening their eyes to the fact that we have to go to court to shift them!

attilathelandlord
19-05-2008, 19:46 PM
Well they weren't so horrified that they coughed up. Don't leave this one in your tenant's hands. Every move they've made has told you they are unreliable so serve notices when appropriate.

islandgirl
19-05-2008, 20:04 PM
Have been here and the notice given by the tenants is worth nothing. I had a signed letter giving notice and relinquishing tenancy - tenant then changed his mind saying "we are not going now you will have to throw us out". Needless to say we did (via a section 8)!

Denebob
19-05-2008, 20:33 PM
If you serve then by hand (with an independent witness) service will be deemed on Tuesday 27th.

Dumb novice question here, but if someone else served notice would they need an independent witness or is one person enough? I'm asking because a) I live an hour away from where our property is & would struggle to camp out for a weekend on their doorstep & b) I don't think they would answer the door to me so was planning to send someone else to serve them.

Denebob
19-05-2008, 20:35 PM
Well they weren't so horrified that they coughed up. Don't leave this one in your tenant's hands. Every move they've made has told you they are unreliable so serve notices when appropriate.

You are so right. My Husband & I have ummed & arred about whether to do this on 23rd because they have promised to pay on 28th which is his payday. Hubby wants to wait to see if they pay but I just think they will take us for fools again.

Esio Trot
19-05-2008, 20:53 PM
Dumb novice question here, but if someone else served notice would they need an independent witness or is one person enough? I'm asking because a) I live an hour away from where our property is & would struggle to camp out for a weekend on their doorstep & b) I don't think they would answer the door to me so was planning to send someone else to serve them.

Download form N215 (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=459) from HM Court Service website.

You do not have to prove they have received it, just that it was served. The "someone else" simply fills in the N215 with details and time and date and attaches it to a copy of the s8 they have just delivered.

It's not necessary to do this, but covers you in case the tenants say that they didn't receive it. The law simply says that it must be served, and you will have evidence of this.

You can do it by first class post, but in this case the dates I gave will be wrong (you can work out the service date from the notes on the back of the N215). It does not need to be sent recorded, but you should hand it in to a post office and get a certificate of posting. Still fill in N215, and ideally have someone else post it.

Esio Trot
19-05-2008, 21:03 PM
You are so right. My Husband & I have ummed & arred about whether to do this on 23rd because they have promised to pay on 28th which is his payday. Hubby wants to wait to see if they pay but I just think they will take us for fools again.

You can always do a covering letter saying how sorry you are to serve this as you are sure that they will make their payment as promised on the 28th, but your legal advisor has given you the dates and insisted that it is done.

Just to be sure of the dates, and amounts, can you confirm that their rent day is the 23rd and also what is the rental figure and does the tenancy agreement say that it is to be paid monthly?

Denebob
19-05-2008, 21:14 PM
You can always do a covering letter saying how sorry you are to serve this as you are sure that they will make their payment as promised on the 28th, but your legal advisor has given you the dates and insisted that it is done.

Just to be sure of the dates, and amounts, can you confirm that their rent day is the 23rd and also what is the rental figure and does the tenancy agreement say that it is to be paid monthly?

Thank you so so much for the N215, I had no idea! Yes I was thinking of a covering note to take the edge off.

Rent day is 23rd officially but on "normal" months that is the day the cash leaves their account by S/O so we usually get it around 28th. We know that Mrs Tenant gets paid on 23rd but Mr Tenant now gets paid on 28th. They owe £360 arrears (£300 rent & £60 bank charges) then come 23rd May will owe a further £600. Tenancy agreement does say monthly.

johnboy
20-05-2008, 08:43 AM
If a tenant gives a valid notice to quit and they dont there is a legal arguement that states you can charge them double the rent for before the notice date expired.
I think it is section 18 The Distress for Rent Act 1737

I dont know much about it but I'm sure Jeffrey would.

If that is the case it may be more of a incentive for the tenant to leave when you inform them.

jeffrey
20-05-2008, 09:04 AM
If a tenant gives a valid notice to quit and they dont there is a legal arguement that states you can charge them double the rent for before the notice date expired.
I think it is section 18 The Distress for Rent Act 1737

I dont know much about it but I'm sure Jeffrey would.

If that is the case it may be more of a incentive for the tenant to leave when you inform them.

Go on, then. Flattery will get you everywhere!
Yes: s.18 of 1737 Act (which will NOT be repealed when Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 abolishes common-law distraint)- in 18th. century English, at v. great length- applies if T gives Notice to Quit but fails to leave on intended date. Thenceforth, T has to pay double the existing rent until he does leave. Correspondingly, L can sue for the doubled rent.

Denebob
21-05-2008, 08:55 AM
That is very interesting! I will save that little gem for if things get difficult, thanks.

I am just filling in the section 8 now & Ground 8. b) says "If rent is payable monthly, at least 2 months rent is unpaid"

On the date of serving, they will have been in arrears for 2 months but won't owe us a full 2 months rent as they part paid. Can I still serve them as they are 2 months in arrears or am I going to have to wait until they owe a full 2 months rent?

History goes like this:

23rd March £600 due
1st April £60 bank charges added- £660 owed
23rd April £600 due. £200 paid- £1060 owed
28th April £200 paid- £860 owed
29th April £500 paid-£360 owed
23rd May £600 due- Total £960 owed

jeffrey
21-05-2008, 12:40 PM
That is very interesting! I will save that little gem for if things get difficult, thanks.

I am just filling in the section 8 now & Ground 8. b) says "If rent is payable monthly, at least 2 months rent is unpaid"

On the date of serving, they will have been in arrears for 2 months but won't owe us a full 2 months rent as they part paid. Can I still serve them as they are 2 months in arrears or am I going to have to wait until they owe a full 2 months rent?

History goes like this:

23rd March £600 due
1st April £60 bank charges added- £660 owed
23rd April £600 due. £200 paid- £1060 owed
28th April £200 paid- £860 owed
29th April £500 paid-£360 owed
23rd May £600 due- Total £960 owed

At no time has T left £1200 rent unpaid. Ground 8 therefore cannot be used (yet!) Also, the £60 is not "rent" so ignore it for this purpose.
BUT g10/11 apply. Why not serve s.8 Notice on this basis? You could later serve another on g8 if and when the amount unpaid reaches £1200.

Denebob
21-05-2008, 14:47 PM
At no time has T left £1200 rent unpaid. Ground 8 therefore cannot be used (yet!) Also, the £60 is not "rent" so ignore it for this purpose.
BUT g10/11 apply. Why not serve s.8 Notice on this basis? You could later serve another on g8 if and when the amount unpaid reaches £1200.

But isn't G8 Mandatory?

jeffrey
21-05-2008, 17:05 PM
But isn't G8 Mandatory?

Yes, it is, but g8 demands that there must be at least two months' rent unpaid. There isn't.

Section 8 includes mandatory grounds (1-8 inc) and discretionary grounds (9-17 inc.) Are you confusing s.8 and g8?

jeffrey
21-05-2008, 17:29 PM
Possible explanation of confusion:
How much is the rent per month? My last posts assume £600 p.m., but is that so? You first seem to have posted on basis of £480 p.m.
If it is £480, then, yes- the rent is > two months' unpaid on basis of post #15!

Denebob
21-05-2008, 17:52 PM
I thought that g8 being mandatory meant that you couldn't serve an S8 without 2 months rent owed. If I can still serve it on g10 & 11 then that is great.

You were right the first time.. £600 pm.

I have written it up & ready to send on 24th with an N215. Thanks so much for your help. I shall report back on what happens next.

jeffrey
21-05-2008, 18:12 PM
I thought that g8 being mandatory meant that you couldn't serve an S8 without 2 months rent owed. If I can still serve it on g10 & 11 then that is great.
NOW you've got it. Serve under g10/11 (discretionary) and you might achieve a possession order.

Nimbus
01-12-2008, 13:22 PM
Hello
I have a tenant on a periodic tenancy (following a 6 month tenancy) who gave me 1 months notice to quit. I accepted this, instructed my letting agency accordingly, and they found a new tenant for a 6 month tenancy.

The existing tenant has now changed his mind and wants to continue with the periodic tenancy, and my letting agent tells me he is allowed to do this.

Surely if I have accepted the original notice, and my letting agent has taken a deposit and admin fee from the new (proposed) tenant then the notice cannot be revoked?

Help!

SALL
01-12-2008, 13:34 PM
Hello
I have a tenant on a periodic tenancy (following a 6 month tenancy) who gave me 1 months notice to quit. I accepted this, instructed my letting agency accordingly, and they found a new tenant for a 6 month tenancy.

The existing tenant has now changed his mind and wants to continue with the periodic tenancy, and my letting agent tells me he is allowed to do this.

Surely if I have accepted the original notice, and my letting agent has taken a deposit and admin fee from the new (proposed) tenant then the notice cannot be revoked?

Help!

The tenant can not go back on a notice to quit. You can claim 2 x the rent amount in damages from the tenant after the notice has expired.

Hopefully one of the Lawyers on the forum will respond with the details of the Law.

Once you have more details, you can inform the tenant of this fact. That might make them see some sense.

Lawcruncher
01-12-2008, 15:16 PM
Remember though that although the tenancy comes to an end when the notice expires:

1. You still need a court order to get possession.

2. If you accept or demand rent for any period after the notice expires you will start a new tenancy.

Nimbus
01-12-2008, 15:47 PM
Yes. What happened is that the tenant was in for a 6 month tenancy - that expired and he went onto a monthly periodic tenancy. He then gave notice to quit the periodic tenancy and the letting agents then found a new tenant for a 6 month let and took deposits etc. but then he revoked his notice.

My letting agents tell me he's within the law doing this. I don't know if they're telling porkies, and I have lost a 6 month assured let.

SALL
01-12-2008, 15:53 PM
Well letting agents are not the best people to take leagal advice off.

As Lawcruncher has said, if you have started to accept rent after the expiry of their notice then you have granted them a new tenancy and I doublt you can do much now.

jonblair123
01-12-2008, 17:02 PM
Hello
I have a tenant on a periodic tenancy (following a 6 month tenancy) who gave me 1 months notice to quit. I accepted this, instructed my letting agency accordingly, and they found a new tenant for a 6 month tenancy.

The existing tenant has now changed his mind and wants to continue with the periodic tenancy, and my letting agent tells me he is allowed to do this.

Surely if I have accepted the original notice, and my letting agent has taken a deposit and admin fee from the new (proposed) tenant then the notice cannot be revoked?

Help!

You can not do anything to a tenant, even if he/she is blatantly violating terms of your contract. There is a mountain of legislation that works in favour of tenants(especially bad ones). You have to go to court for any redress. Courts in my area do nothing for 16 weeks anything to do with a landlords application! Now normally, I am thankful of the independence of our courts, but I must say, and going by the court experience in my area (Southampton), I have concluded that they are biassed against landlords. That is after 20 years of being a landlord.

I suggest, if you are aggrieved, is to seek financial compensation from the tenant. If he does not pay or you cant reach agreement, take him/her to the small claims court. It is easy to do online.

It will take you months and months to get them out. In the meantime, if you have signed up another tenant, dont forget they can sue you for breach of contract!

Chewy
15-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Where do I stand? My tenant gave one months notice, which I accepted and confirmed in writing, now they are saying they want to stay until there new house is ready. I have new tenants lined up to move in a few days after they were supposed to vacate and I’m worried I will loose them. The current tenants say there notice isn’t legally binding and they will leave when they are ready. Can anyone help?

Poppy
15-07-2009, 11:38 AM
Look at this thread (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=8411).

Warn your immovable notice-giving notice-retracting tenants that if they stay it could cost. ;)

You probably also need to be careful about accepting rent after their notice period has expired. Hopefully a more learned member will elaborate.

ronan007
13-08-2010, 10:19 AM
hi,

We are in a periodic tenancy and we issued our 1 months notice to quit on the belief we would renting somewhere else. That unfortuntely fell through, and we would like to stay on now for another month where we are. The agents though have found alternative tenants and want us out on the orginal notice to quit date, however we have never received a Section 21 notice, can we now legally stay.

On another note the central heating in our property was turned off about 5 months ago and the LL supplied us with gas heaters which take time to heat and out unsatisfactory, do we have legal rights to compensation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

thesaint
13-08-2010, 11:05 AM
hi,

We are in a periodic tenancy and we issued our 1 months notice to quit on the belief we would renting somewhere else. That unfortuntely fell through, and we would like to stay on now for another month where we are. The agents though have found alternative tenants and want us out on the orginal notice to quit date, however we have never received a Section 21 notice, can we now legally stay.


You can legally stay, but let the agents know the situation in full.
It's not their fault, or the tenants that they have found.




On another note the central heating in our property was turned off about 5 months ago and the LL supplied us with gas heaters which take time to heat and out unsatisfactory, do we have legal rights to compensation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

It's something you should have addressed before now. Why is it an issue now?

It's August, and I haven't used my central heating for 3 or 4 months.
Are you in Scotland?

jeffrey
13-08-2010, 11:08 AM
We are in a periodic tenancy and we issued our 1 months notice to quit on the belief we would renting somewhere else. That unfortuntely fell through, and we would like to stay on now for another month where we are. The agents though have found alternative tenants and want us out on the orginal notice to quit date, however we have never received a Section 21 notice, can we now legally stay.
No. You ended your own tenancy. You must go.

Snorkerz
13-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Despite your notice, you can't be forced out without a court order. This would take several months, by which time you will be gone ;)

HOWEVER, there are 2 provisos...


If your landlord feels the need to issue a section 21 notice and it gets to the stage where he incurs costs for doing so, your tenancy agreement may make you liable for those costs.
If your landlord knows about it (many don't) you could legally be charged double rent for your overstay.

Snorkerz
13-08-2010, 11:11 AM
No. You ended your own tenancy. You must go.


Despite your notice, you can't be forced out without a court order. This would take several months, by which time you will be gone ;)

HOWEVER, there are 2 provisos...


If your landlord feels the need to issue a section 21 notice and it gets to the stage where he incurs costs for doing so, your tenancy agreement may make you liable for those costs.
If your landlord knows about it (many don't) you could legally be charged double rent for your overstay.


Jeffrey, we seem to differ, is my interpretation of the situation wrong? In practical terms, if not legal?

jeffrey
13-08-2010, 12:11 PM
Jeffrey, we seem to differ, is my interpretation of the situation wrong? In practical terms, if not legal?
No, we don't differ. T ended tenancy; T must go, but- as you say- L will take time to eject T (and can claim double rent).

Springfields
13-08-2010, 12:36 PM
The listing for fees could be endless.

Most tenancies state that the tenant shall compensate the landlord/ LLA for any associated charges, so not only could you be liable for the double rent and notice fees you could find that the agents look for advertising, re-let fees as well as the cost of the tenant referencing fees if they have to refund these to the other tenant.

I suggest you start looking for another property

ronan007
13-08-2010, 16:03 PM
Thank you everyone for your advise, iin answer to The Saint, we did address the heating problem with the agents but the Landlord put the property on for sale and siad they would install a new heating system if the house was unsold. The moment we put our notice in the Landlord took the property off the market and made it available to rent, the first viewers took it at a greatly increased rent.

ronan007
13-08-2010, 16:09 PM
Thank you Jeffrey, Snorkez and Springfields, Note though we are no longer in AST agreement expired in July so we are in a Periodic . Can we still be liable for Agents fees etc? I think if we can't find another place we will not risk double rent and all the fees and we will just have to put our stuff into storeage and stay in a B&B.
ALSO Further Complication I sent the notice by email not in writing, is it still technically Valid?

Snorkerz
13-08-2010, 17:51 PM
Thank you Jeffrey, Snorkez and Springfields, Note though we are no longer in AST agreement expired in July so we are in a Periodic . Can we still be liable for Agents fees etc? I think if we can't find another place we will not risk double rent and all the fees and we will just have to put our stuff into storeage and stay in a B&B.
ALSO Further Complication I sent the notice by email not in writing, is it still technically Valid?Your periodic tenancy has EXACTLY the same terms and conditions as the AST, with the sole exception of any conditions regarding notice.

Your notice needs to be written. Presumably the agent would just show a print of the email to the judge. Now if YOU needed to rely on the same document, you would have to prove that they received it.

Springfields
13-08-2010, 18:20 PM
Further Complication I sent the notice by email not in writing, is it still technically Valid?

Yes, its valid as they accepted it.

Pobinr
15-09-2010, 10:57 AM
Current tenant sent me notice in writing by email a month ago they wish to move out on 19th Sept.

Meantime I've lined up a new tenant & she's paid me a deposit to move in on 20th Sept.

Now existing tenant's found out place he was going to move to is not available & now only 5 days before due to move out he wishes to retract his notice until he finds an alternative place !

Looks like I'm going to lose my new tenant unless she can pospone her move in date.

Do I have any legal right to insist & enforce that the current tenant moves out on 19th into a B&B until he can find another place ?

Where do I stand ?

westminster
15-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Do I have any legal right to insist & enforce that the current tenant moves out on 19th into a B&B until he can find another place ?

No.

While the tenant cannot 'retract' their notice (without your agreement), and their notice legally ends the tenancy upon notice expiry, they are still protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, meaning you need a court order to evict them if they refuse to go.

I think you can use the T's notice as a basis for an application for possession.

I do hope you haven't signed the contract with the new tenant yet.

Pobinr
15-09-2010, 12:21 PM
Thanks for that advice. At least I don't have to give T two months notice then hopefully. I can jump that stage & seek possession instead.
I never sign contracts until tenant is physically about to moving into a flat that's been vacated.

Moderator1
15-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Several largely similar questions on separate threads have been merged into this thread (hence the repetitive nature of answers).

Snorkerz
15-09-2010, 12:57 PM
Current tenant sent me notice in writing by email a month ago they wish to move out on 19th Sept.

Meantime I've lined up a new tenant & she's paid me a deposit to move in on 20th Sept.

Now existing tenant's found out place he was going to move to is not available & now only 5 days before due to move out he wishes to retract his notice until he finds an alternative place !

Looks like I'm going to lose my new tenant unless she can pospone her move in date.

Do I have any legal right to insist & enforce that the current tenant moves out on 19th into a B&B until he can find another place ?

Where do I stand ?look at the Distress for Rent Act 1737 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/documents/1737/19/apgb/c19/18) - this might focus your tenants mind on the need to move out ASAP.

Pobinr
16-09-2010, 19:29 PM
The current tenant has said he wont go. He wants to stay. So rather than go through the stress & cost of legal proceedings along with finding another tenant, I'm going to let him stay.
The girl that had expected to move in on Monday is now going to be very disappointed.
So it would seem that a notice from the tenant to end the tenancy is as good as worthless.
When tenants change their mind & decide not to end their tenancy then it's other people such as the LL & the next tenant that suffer the consequences, rather than them.
The law should be such that people who renege on agreements are the ones that suffer the negative consequences of doing so, not the innocent parties.
The law is an ass.

Lawcruncher
16-09-2010, 20:08 PM
The current tenant has said he wont go. He wants to stay. So rather than go through the stress & cost of legal proceedings along with finding another tenant, I'm going to let him stay.
The girl that had expected to move in on Monday is now going to be very disappointed.
So it would seem that a notice from the tenant to end the tenancy is as good as worthless.
When tenants change their mind & decide not to end their tenancy then it's other people such as the LL & the next tenant that suffer the consequences, rather than them.
The law should be such that people who renege on agreements are the ones that suffer the negative consequences of doing so, not the innocent parties.
The law is an ass.

When you talk about the law there are two aspects. First, there is what the law actually is. In this respect the law is right behind you except that it denies you the right to evict the tenant without due process. Secondly, there is the procedure. That the law takes its time was, is and always will be the case not only in the UK but everywhere. Not only will things not get better if legislation passed by the last government is not brought into force, but they look like getting worse. The Ministry of Justice has announced proposals to modernise and improve the courts and part of the "improvement" apparently includes closing 54 county courts.

Pobinr
16-09-2010, 22:12 PM
When you talk about the law there are two aspects. First, there is what the law actually is. In this respect the law is right behind you except that it denies you the right to evict the tenant without due process. Secondly, there is the procedure. That the law takes its time was, is and always will be the case not only in the UK but everywhere. Not only will things not get better if legislation passed by the last government is not brought into force, but they look like getting worse. The Ministry of Justice has announced proposals to modernise and improve the courts and part of the "improvement" apparently includes closing 54 county courts.If the law was on my side it wouldn't stop me from booting the little 5hit out onto the street on the last day of his notice !
Frankly I don't see why it should be any harder to get someone out of a rented property than it is to boot someone out of a hotel room. Call the old bill & have them put out onto the street if they haven't paid the rent for a month or if they decide not to go at the end of their notice.

jeffrey
16-09-2010, 22:15 PM
Letting: security of tenure and statutory rights.
Hotel: licence and none other than contractual rights.

Pobinr
16-09-2010, 23:26 PM
Letting: security of tenure and statutory rights.
Hotel: licence and none other than contractual rights.
Doesn't make it any better does it.

gardeningmad
16-09-2010, 23:34 PM
Not only will things not get better if legislation passed by the last government is not brought into force, but they look like getting worse

What is the legislation passed by the last goverment?

Lawcruncher
16-09-2010, 23:52 PM
Not only will things not get better if legislation passed by the last government is not brought into force, but they look like getting worse

What is the legislation passed by the last goverment?

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

jeffrey
17-09-2010, 09:23 AM
Doesn't make it any better does it.
But you did ask. Don't shoot the messenger!

Snorkerz
17-09-2010, 18:07 PM
I'm going to let him stay.Providing you haven't told him that you're going to let him stay, then you may be able to use the Distress for Rent Act 1737 until he is evicted.

Pobinr
18-09-2010, 07:45 AM
Providing you haven't told him that you're going to let him stay, then you may be able to use the Distress for Rent Act 1737 until he is evicted.
Thanks for posting that. It's interesting, but iffy. Then there would be the last month when the tenant probably wouldn't cooperate with letting me show prospective tenants. So I'd probably wind up with 2 or 3 weeks void. All in all I can imagine if I wasn't granted double rent then that process in total would cost me 5 or 6 hundred pounds plus the stress.
So I'll take the easy way out & let him stay.
As is all too often the case, the wrong do'er wins because the law is so tardy & expensive.

Snorkerz
18-09-2010, 10:43 AM
Thanks for posting that. It's interesting, but iffy. Then there would be the last month when the tenant probably wouldn't cooperate with letting me show prospective tenants. So I'd probably wind up with 2 or 3 weeks void. All in all I can imagine if I wasn't granted double rent then that process in total would cost me 5 or 6 hundred pounds plus the stress.
So I'll take the easy way out & let him stay.
As is all too often the case, the wrong do'er wins because the law is so tardy & expensive.Obviously, that is your choice, but remember it isn't the laws fault that you have decided not to exercise your rights.

Lawcruncher
18-09-2010, 21:12 PM
As is all too often the case, the wrong do'er wins because the law is so tardy & expensive.

You are of course right, but remember that this applies equally to tenants who have a case against their landlords.

westminster
18-09-2010, 23:49 PM
As is all too often the case, the wrong do'er wins because the law is so tardy & expensive.

There is an endless stream of similar complaints from both landlords and tenants on this forum; both sides equally convinced that the law is an ass and biased against them. The truth is that while the law is inevitably imperfect it is fairly evenly weighted on both sides.

If anything, I'd say it's weighted on the side of landlords (and I'm a landlord) because ultimately, with an AST, we can evict the tenant fairly easily on no ground whatsoever via s.21. So the tenant complaining that the LL hasn't fulfilled his repairing obligations can find himself turfed out before even getting to the point where he can enforce these obligations. Claims for disrepair may be "tardy and expensive" and hard to prove, so the tenant may well decide not to pursue them.

theartfullodger
19-09-2010, 08:20 AM
There is an endless stream of similar complaints from both landlords and tenants on this forum; both sides equally convinced that the law is an ass and biased against them. The truth is that while the law is inevitably imperfect it is fairly evenly weighted on both sides.

If anything, I'd say it's weighted on the side of landlords (and I'm a landlord) because ultimately, with an AST, we can evict the tenant fairly easily on no ground whatsoever via s.21. So the tenant complaining that the LL hasn't fulfilled his repairing obligations can find himself turfed out before even getting to the point where he can enforce these obligations. Claims for disrepair may be "tardy and expensive" and hard to prove, so the tenant may well decide not to pursue them.


Indeed, specifically since HA 1988, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_to_let#History
(with the usual daft stupidities one finds on WrongiPedia, but feel free to update it if offended: Nope, I did not write (that) article..

However I do kinda think the law is biased against both Landlords & Tenants, but in favour of the lawyers....

Pobinr
20-09-2010, 10:49 AM
I dissagree.
Suppose a T is being seriously negligent in looking after your property. It would still take three months to evict them. By that time the place could be ruined. Same if they don't pay their rent. You know why many don't pay their rent ?
Cos they know they get a free home for 3 months whilst the legal process grinds slowly away.
As regards the notice from T to end tenancy not being worth the paper it's written on. Well if you think that's fair I don't.
Tell that to the next T that had removal van booked etc & leave taken so she could move move in today.
She'll now have to commute until she can find somewhere else, all because current T renaged on a written notice on a whim.
Whatever action I might take won't make things any better for her will it.
With almost no notice she's had to forgo the home she was banking on all because of current T's whim.
That's not much better than summary eviction is it.

westminster
20-09-2010, 11:00 AM
Suppose a T is being seriously negligent in looking after your property....Cos they know they get a free home for 3 months whilst the legal process grinds slowly away.
The landlord can claim against a non-paying T (or their guarantor) for the unpaid rent/damage. The landlord can also limit his risks by carrying out thorough reference/credit checks, and taking out landlord insurance.


As regards the notice from T to end tenancy not being worth the paper it's written on. Well if you think that's fair I don't.
The NTQ was valid. You have chosen to allow T to withdraw his notice.

If you don't like the law then stop being a landlord. Complaining about how unfair it is achieves nothing.

leaseholdanswers
20-09-2010, 11:04 AM
Its my 'umble view that the remedies are perhaps not excellent, but that which renders them ineffective is the court process that takes so long just to get a hearing date.

if only they could appear like Monty Pythons Spanish Inquisition.....

Pobinr
20-09-2010, 15:42 PM
The landlord can claim against a non-paying T (or their guarantor) for the unpaid rent/damage. The landlord can also limit his risks by carrying out thorough reference/credit checks, and taking out landlord insurance.


The NTQ was valid. You have chosen to allow T to withdraw his notice.

If you don't like the law then stop being a landlord. Complaining about how unfair it is achieves nothing.
The NTQ was valid, but as good as worthless because of the law that stops me evicting the tenant on the day he was due to move out !

islandgirl
20-09-2010, 15:45 PM
Same thing happened to me - written NTQ but tenant changed his mind and I was told that within the fixed term such a notice was not worth the paper it was written on. I had to evict through the court...

Lawcruncher
20-09-2010, 16:46 PM
Same thing happened to me - written NTQ but tenant changed his mind and I was told that within the fixed term such a notice was not worth the paper it was written on. I had to evict through the court...

A notice to quit given "within the fixed term" is certainly invalid unless the agreement provides for the fixed term to continue as a periodic one. This is because any non-contractual periodic tenancy that arises after a fixed term comes to an end is contingent upon the tenant remaining in occupation. Unless and until the tenant stays there is no periodic tenancy and you cannot give notice to end something that does not exist.

Lawcruncher
20-09-2010, 17:08 PM
The NTQ was valid, but as good as worthless because of the law that stops me evicting the tenant on the day he was due to move out !

Theoretically no, but in practice yes, because you will never get a court hearing on the day after the notice to quit expires. However, there is no doubt that the tenancy ends when the notice expires.

Even the most radical lawyer will admit (even if he does so whispering into his pillow at the dead of night after drawing the curtains and double locking the doors) that there are some tenants who deserve to be summarily evicted. However, the law insists as matter of social policy that no one should be deprived of a home without a proper enquiry. If on the whole you agree with that policy then you cannot really start to make exceptions. If you do not agree with the policy then you will have to campaign for change.

westminster
20-09-2010, 17:34 PM
Classic example of the view from the tenant's side in another thread posted today
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=245568#post245568


Following an ongoing dispute about the length of time the landlord (via a letting agent) has taken to repair a faulty appliance (2 months+), I am trying to determine my rights as a private tenant.
I wish to leave the property because of the hassle the dispute has caused me...

Throughout the dispute I am certain I have acted fairly and within the contract, given access to the property, continued paying rent, even taken time off work to wait at home for engineers (some who never turned up)...

I feel like these kinds of problems always favour the landlord and that the tenant has no realistic options (other than lengthy, expensive, legal proceedings) when it comes to dispute resolution.

Pobinr
20-09-2010, 20:26 PM
Classic example of the view from the tenant's side in another thread posted today
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=245568#post245568This is a separate issue so irrelevant

Pobinr
20-09-2010, 20:28 PM
Theoretically no, but in practice yes, because you will never get a court hearing on the day after the notice to quit expires. However, there is no doubt that the tenancy ends when the notice expires.

Even the most radical lawyer will admit (even if he does so whispering into his pillow at the dead of night after drawing the curtains and double locking the doors) that there are some tenants who deserve to be summarily evicted. However, the law insists as matter of social policy that no one should be deprived of a home without a proper enquiry. If on the whole you agree with that policy then you cannot really start to make exceptions. If you do not agree with the policy then you will have to campaign for change.Yes I do agree with that policy for the following reason - The innocent party is the one deprived a proper home, namely the tenant that was going to move in, but instead she's been denied that by the existing tenant !
It's irrelevant to say technically the tenancy has ended. It's occupation that needs to end.
Instead the offending selfish irresponsible party holds all the trump cards. Thank you legislators.
Madness !

Lawcruncher
20-09-2010, 20:50 PM
Thank you legislators.

Indeed! They had you in mind back in 1737:

And whereas great inconveniences have happened and may happen to landlords whose tenants have power to determine their leases, by giving notice to quit the premisses by them holden, and yet refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same

and which continues to provide for the tenant to pay double rent for so long as he remains in occupation after his notice to quit expires. Why are you not demanding the double rent?

Sad S
20-09-2010, 21:16 PM
The innocent party is the one deprived a proper home, namely the tenant that was going to move in, but instead she's been denied that by the existing tenant !
Madness !


The innocent party was misled.
You shouldn't have let her believe the property was available until you had vacant possesssion.
Landlords have to factor in void periods for this very reason.

Pobinr
20-09-2010, 23:48 PM
Indeed! They had you in mind back in 1737:

And whereas great inconveniences have happened and may happen to landlords whose tenants have power to determine their leases, by giving notice to quit the premisses by them holden, and yet refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same

and which continues to provide for the tenant to pay double rent for so long as he remains in occupation after his notice to quit expires. Why are you not demanding the double rent?Double the rent would mean he'd leave.
But too late not to have screwed up everyone else's plans. Then I'd have to find another T. So it's easier to let him stay. The damage is done.
But if he messes me about again then it's definitely curtains for him on principle.

Pobinr
21-09-2010, 18:37 PM
The innocent party was misled.
You shouldn't have let her believe the property was available until you had vacant possesssion.
Landlords have to factor in void periods for this very reason.I can't believe how mad some people here are. It was not I, but the current tenant that lead us to believe the flat would be available on the said date wasn't it !!!!!!!!!!!
Or is that too simple for you to grasp.

theartfullodger
21-09-2010, 18:41 PM
I can't believe how mad some people here are.



You shouldn't have let her believe the property was available until you had vacant possesssion.

I think that says it all..... (e.g. "Dear Miss T: I expect & hope, the current T having advised me he is departing 15th, that 69 Acacia Avenue will be available for you on 21st September 2010 and am happy to draw up a tenancy agreement on the basis. However, until I can confirm to you that the tenancy may proceed, would you kindly hold on to the month's rent in advance & 1.5 months deposit?? We can do the paperwork & sign everything in 30 minutes when we are both ready to proceed". ).

Your "old" T was simply exercising his legal rights: You'd want to be able to also, surely??

Lawcruncher
21-09-2010, 18:57 PM
Your "old" T was simply exercising his legal rights

Sort of yes. The only right he has is the right not to be summarily evicted. Unlike a tenant who has been served a section 21 notice he has no right to stay in the property and is liable to pay double rent and possibly other damages.