Requirement to stay 3 days after Section 21 Notice

[rossdisco]

Hi There,

I have been reading through and I would guess that although I am not obliged to leave until a court hearing is served, what kind of situation am I putting myself in by staying 3 days past the the Section 21 notice date.

The situation:

Periodic tenancy: Has been rolling for 6 months since expiration of one year assured shorthold contract

The new property is unavailable to move in to until 3 days after the section 21 date.

Section 21 served on the grounds of the landlord looking to sell the house. Nobody has viewed the house so I cannot believe there are people waiting.

Have asked the estate agent who have said the landlord is unwilling to let us stay the extra few days.

1) Would the LL be able to sue us for this minor infringement?
2) Would staying past the section 21 date then mean that we would be liable for a full months rent as notice dates have to be in line with original moving dates?

Thanks in advance!!

[Ericthelobster]

1) Would the LL be able to sue us for this minor infringement?

It's not an infringement. All that could happen is that the landlord can apply to the courts for reposession of the property on that date, so (at least in theory?) the worst that could happen is that you might end up liable for the cost of that application. I think if you'd made it 100% clear that you'd be leaving 3 days after the S21 date under these circumstances, the LL would be a bit daft not to wait those 3 days to see if you did indeed leave.

2) Would staying past the section 21 date then mean that we would be liable for a full months rent as notice dates have to be in line with original moving dates?

Yes. But a more reasonable landlord would have just agreed to the 3 extra days pro rata, I'd have thought.

[rossdisco]

Thanks for the quick reply

Yes. But a more reasonable landlord would have just agreed to the 3 extra days pro rata, I'd have thought.

'Estate agent' 'Reasonable'

Not sure how to construct a sentence with those words. Maybe 'un'

Though as another question.

The deposit is held by a third party. Would it not be them to deem whether it is unreasonable to demand a full months rent rather than a 3 day deduction?

Thanks

[45002]

For Reference. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...iewing%29-nbsp

[JaneK2011]

The section 21 just tells you that the LL is entitled to apply for a possession order after the expiry date. If you wish to leave having received a section 21 you still need to give notice the same as if you hadn't received one. Therefore you should give not less than one month's notice coinciding with a tenancy period.

Am I right that you wish leave three days into a tenancy period? You will only be able to do this without paying a full month's rent if you have the landlord's agreement.

[mariner]

Ignoring valid s21 expiry date is not an infringement, you can stay until LL gets court repo order and legally evicts with Bailiffs.
HOWEVER, if you intend to vacate before Court order but after receiving a s21 you are required to give due Notice. For SPT, this must be served (received by LL) by expiry of one tenancy period and expires at end of next T period, when your T is terminated automatically. The T period starts on day 1 of SPT (the day after the fixed term AST expired. The period is set by frequency of rent due eg pcm but may not coincide with rent due date. Full period rent is payable for whole of notice period, even if you vacate property 3 days in. Of you stay beyond your expiry date then LL could claim 2x rent as mesne profits for each day you overstay.
If LLs s21 expiry date is accurate, then that is the last day of a T period, so I cannot see how you can provide valid T SPT notice to vacate 3 days later, without paying full period rent or negotiating with LL.
He may be happy to see you go 3 days later, without the hassle & cost of court repo order. Even in car parks you are obliged to pay for x hrs even if you wish to stay for much less. Renting is no different

overkapped with Janet's concise reply.

[Ericthelobster]

'Estate agent' 'Reasonable'
Not sure how to construct a sentence with those words.

Yeah - note I didn't do so!

The deposit is held by a third party. Would it not be them to deem whether it is unreasonable to demand a full months rent rather than a 3 day deduction?

Not at all - it's perfectly legal and above board that you should pay the full month. I just meant that if the LL was a decent bloke, then if you'd been a good tenant to him and if it didn't actually make any difference to him one way or another whether you left on Day 0 or Day 3, then as a favour he might have let you off with doing it pro rata. I've done that myself once or twice when I've been in that situation (but then I'm a reasonable landlord and a decent bloke... )