We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Required notice period on an assured shorthold periodic?
Comments
-
-
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »
O joy of joys; you have seen the light. "Quiet enjoyment" is a misnomer.
Notlob
I'd say it was pretty clear cut. Any action by a third party which you regard as inconsistant to your quiet enjoyment of your home pretty much covers it. Simples.0 -
It should be noted that you do not have to allow viewings at any time during the tenancy, so it is irrelevant whether the agency have one or two months to market if you choose to be obstructive.
That's useful to know, thanks for that.As others have said clauses in your AST do not override the legislation - one month notice to quit from the tenant coinciding with a rental period, right to quiet enjoyment etc.
What is the actual legislation that prescribes one month notice to quit from the rental date? I can't seem to find it and just wondered where and how it's defined in law (I always like to see something for myself so I understand the wording, etc!)
Thanks again.0 -
Oh this is immature nonsense on your part. It is the facts which decide this matter, not who says it.Only by a court order!
The issue here is the definition of "quiet enjoyment" and as stated earlier, I do not believe that a viewings clause fits in the category. If any of the posters who have disagreed with me on this point are solicitors, then put your hand up and I will bow.
NotlobHi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Often misunderstood "Peaceful Enjoyment". It is more to do with the right of occupancy rather than Temporary inconvenience. Simply arranging viewings is not a "Peaceful Enjoyment" issue.
Notlob, you are totally and utterly incorrect, as has been pointed out by several knowledgeable posters here (and now me as well).
The contractual agreement to allow access for viewings can be rescinded at any time by the tenant, as it cannot override the statutory right to quiet enjoyment, which has been established in civil law as pertaining to exactly this sort of situation
And here is the same outlined by Tessa Shepperson, who is a well-known tenancy lawyer and author of several books on the subject (she talks about inspections part-way down, but viewings are the same).
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/05/23/tenancy-agreements-31-days-of-tips-day-23-inspections/0 -
princeofpounds wrote: »Notlob, you are totally and utterly incorrect, as has been pointed out by several knowledgeable posters here (and now me as well).
The contractual agreement to allow access for viewings can be rescinded at any time by the tenant, as it cannot override the statutory right to quiet enjoyment, which has been established in civil law as pertaining to exactly this sort of situation
And here is the same outlined by Tessa Shepperson, who is a well-known tenancy lawyer and author of several books on the subject (she talks about inspections part-way down, but viewings are the same).
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/05/23/tenancy-agreements-31-days-of-tips-day-23-inspections/
She makes reference to quiet enjoyment in the context of gaining access to the property WITHOUT permission. Ringing up a tenant requesting access to undertake a viewing who says no, citing "quiet enjoyment" as the reason is just incorrect, as one is asking permission. However, if permission is denied, but the TA has a clause stating otherwise, I have always accepted that the tenant can refuse access and there is nothing I can do, but I do believe the LL might have a claim on the deposit for potential loss of rent as a result of the tenant's actions. There is no "quiet enjoyment" issue here.
NotlobNotlob0 -
Emanef I think the legislation is the housing act 1988 amended 1996.
http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/section-21-notice-to-quit.htm
But I'm no expert , hopefully some of the other more experienced posters can confirm, instead of bickering about quiet enjoyment
0 -
She makes reference to quiet enjoyment in the context of gaining access to the property WITHOUT permission. Ringing up a tenant requesting access to undertake a viewing who says no, citing "quiet enjoyment" as the reason is just incorrect, as one is asking permission. However, if permission is denied, but the TA has a clause stating otherwise, I have always accepted that the tenant can refuse access and there is nothing I can do, but I do believe the LL might have a claim on the deposit for potential loss of rent as a result of the tenant's actions. There is no "quiet enjoyment" issue here.
Notlob
As long as the tenant behaves in a tenant like maner (pays rent, doesn't damage the property etc) there is no viable claim on the bond. The LLs void costs are, I'm afraid, not the responsibility of the previous tenant UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. The tenant has behaved in a maner consistent with their statutory rights and duties and any clause that reduces those rights cannot be enforced or compensated for.0 -
I'n not disputing with all the posters here about the rights of Ts. I just wanted to point out that the "right to quite enjoyment" is a Common Law right and not a Statutory right as I am behind on my daily pedantry quota.0
-
I've just had a reply from the agents' legal person and they seem to have given a good explanation;
So according to that, common law requires both parties to give four weeks notice, but the Housing Act then put a legal duty on the landlord to give two months? Seems an anomoly that a requirement was only placed on one party.... but then I guess UK law is full of such anomolies![FONT="]The problem of convincing anyone is that this is part of the common law of landlord and tenant, i.e. legal custom and precedent going back centuries; nothing to do with ASTs as such, and you will not find any one statute that sets it out. At common law, any periodic tenancy can be ended by a notice to quit from either party, which must expire at the end of a rent period and must give notice of not less than the duration of the rent period.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This has been modified, but not abolished, by more recent specific legislation, for example the Protection from Eviction Act that requires a notice to quit from a landlord to a residential tenant to be of not less than four weeks' duration - even if the rent is payable weekly.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The AST regime set up by the Housing Acts 1988 and 1996 did not alter the position set out above; technically the landlord of a monthly periodic AST can end the tenancy by giving[/FONT] [FONT="]not less than one month's notice to quit, as can the tenant. But note that other legislation had already made it illegal for the landlord of a residential property to evict the tenant without a Court order, even after the expiry of a notice to quit; and physical eviction can only be carried out by Court bailiffs. What the Housing Acts did was to add an additional requirement that a landlord who wants possession of a residential property at the end of an AST cannot go to Court for a possession order, either because the fixed term has ended, or because a notice to quit has expired, without giving the tenant at least two months' notice if his intention to do so - the Section 21 notice. Hence this notice is not strictly a notice to quit, although in practice it has a similar effect; its proper name is a notice of seeking possession. [/FONT]
[FONT="]No such requirement was placed on the tenant. This may seem unfair, but that is politics.[/FONT]0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards