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.

Does a tenant have to give notice on a SPT, when a s.21 has been issued?

13

Comments

  • thesaint
    thesaint Posts: 4,324
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Jamie is right, tenant should give notice:

    However I am unaware of any cases where a landlord has successfully sued a departing tenant in such circumstances for unpaid rent.

    The wise landlord would IMHO simply accept departing tenant: If nervous, get all to sign a deed of surrender.

    A genuine £5 to an agreed housing charity is anyone can quote a case where a landlord successfully thus sued...

    Cheers!

    What you are asking for is akin to asking for where a rape victim had successfully sued for the upkeep of the child born after the rape.

    If the rapist got sent to prison, they would seemingly be happy with that, and forget about money they are owed.

    I wouldn't argue that a judge would probably decide that the rapist didn't owe money for the next 18 years if the case went before him.
    Well life is harsh, hug me don't reject me.
  • rpc
    rpc Posts: 2,353 Forumite
    You serve a S21 because you want a tenant out, and the tenant leaves. To complain about the timing or exchange of letters is, in the practical world, bonkers IMHO.

    If we assume (as I think is correct) that the S21 doesn't end the tenancy so strictly notice is always required from the tenant (absent a court order for possession) then a lot of landlords are probably violating their tenants exclusive possession.

    T leaves in response to S21, unless there is notice or agreed surrender then the tenancy continues. When the LL moves back in or relets, the original T still has exclusive possession unless the LL can prove abandonment.

    So I suppose any T that leaves in response to a S21 should really push for a prosecution for illegal eviction when their home is taken over. Non-payment of rent is irrelevant.
    What you are asking for is akin to asking for where a rape victim had successfully sued for the upkeep of the child born after the rape.

    !!!!!!?
  • rpc wrote: »
    You serve a S21 because you want a tenant out, and the tenant leaves. To complain about the timing or exchange of letters is, in the practical world, bonkers IMHO.

    If we assume (as I think is correct) that the S21 doesn't end the tenancy so strictly notice is always required from the tenant (absent a court order for possession) then a lot of landlords are probably violating their tenants exclusive possession.

    T leaves in response to S21, unless there is notice or agreed surrender then the tenancy continues. When the LL moves back in or relets, the original T still has exclusive possession unless the LL can prove abandonment.

    So I suppose any T that leaves in response to a S21 should really push for a prosecution for illegal eviction when their home is taken over. Non-payment of rent is irrelevant.



    !!!!!!?


    I'm not sure what you're saying.
    Are you saying that a tenant should give notice, because a s.21 alone (without court order) doesn't end a tenancy, and therefore any tenant leaving on expiry can actually claim unfair eviction, in the absence if a surrender?
  • jjlandlord
    jjlandlord Posts: 5,099 Forumite
    rpc wrote: »
    So I suppose any T that leaves in response to a S21 should really push for a prosecution for illegal eviction when their home is taken over. Non-payment of rent is irrelevant.

    If T has left, the landlord has a good defence re. illegal eviction but is still open to be sued in a civil case.

    Then, as always, it is a case of measured risk: Most likely the tenant is making an implied offer to surrender. But of course the landlord should at least attempt to clarify the situation by contacting the tenant and have him confirm it in writing.
    If the tenant is offering to surrender the tenancy then the tenancy does continue until the landlord accepts that offer.
  • rpc
    rpc Posts: 2,353 Forumite
    jjlandlord wrote: »
    If T has left, the landlord has a good defence re. illegal eviction but is still open to be sued in a civil case.
    LL would have to prove T had left, which is why I referred to abandonment.

    It's been discussed before, but as you know neither removing your belongings nor returning keys are definitive indicators of a tenancy ending when no written agreement exists.

    A dual-signed checkout inventory would probably do the job, though!
    Then, as always, it is a case of measured risk:

    Of course, and also cost/benefit. Which is why I think it is daft for a LL who wants a tenant to leave to complain that the tenant left.
  • jjlandlord wrote: »
    If T has left, the landlord has a good defence re. illegal eviction but is still open to be sued in a civil case.

    Then, as always, it is a case of measured risk: Most likely the tenant is making an implied offer to surrender. But of course the landlord should at least attempt to clarify the situation by contacting the tenant and have him confirm it in writing.
    If the tenant is offering to surrender the tenancy then the tenancy does continue until the landlord accepts that offer.

    So potentially, a tenant could use a s.21 to their advantage - they leave on the expiry date, refuse to offer any kind of communication that they have agreed this (because, after all, the landlord wants them out - not the tenants choice) and then claim eviction?

    Sounds like our LA is leaving us open to problems if he maintains that the tenant can simply leave and we can take back possession of the property without anything in writing.
  • rpc wrote: »
    LL would have to prove T had left, which is why I referred to abandonment.

    It's been discussed before, but as you know neither removing your belongings nor returning keys are definitive indicators of a tenancy ending when no written agreement exists.

    A dual-signed checkout inventory would probably do the job, though!



    Of course, and also cost/benefit. Which is why I think it is daft for a LL who wants a tenant to leave to complain that the tenant left.

    But a s.21 isn't a notice to quit, so could be argued (technically) that it doesn't signify a LL' s wish for the tenant leave, ONLY that he is able to apply for a court order SHOULD he wish for the T to leave. Obviously in our case, we want the T to go but presumably we can choose to action the s.21 or not on expiry of notice?
  • jjlandlord
    jjlandlord Posts: 5,099 Forumite
    rpc wrote: »
    It's been discussed before, but as you know neither removing your belongings nor returning keys are definitive indicators of a tenancy ending when no written agreement exists

    I haven't claimed otherwise.

    I'm not sure what's the value of this discussion...
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    jjlandlord wrote: »
    I'm not sure what's the value of this discussion...
    I suspect the poin (value?) of the discussion is that tumbledown is a LL who has had previous bad experience with 'professional tenants', and also has advice from an agent that is not trusted.

    So the LL is trying to ensure that there is no possibility of falling foul of the law by assuming the tenancy has ended (either because of the S21 and/or the tenant vacating) when in fact the tenancy is ongoing.

    But I think the legal position has been clarified, and practical advice has also been offered suggesting what action to take if the T vacates.
  • I feel like I have been given more advice from the LA that is not to be trusted today.

    In a nutshell, I mailed him to request he re-issues the PI and reminded the tenant that rent will continue to be due while he stays in the property.

    The LA responded that no further notices were required. The T has said he will leave on 03/12 in accordance with the notice, and the LA says that if we discuss beyond this date with the tenant, our s.21 will be thrown out of court.
    The LA has also said we should not market the property until it is vacant, because the s.21 grounds we have used are not mandatory possession.

    I thought the only way possession would not be granted on a s.21 was if the notice had been incorrectly served?
    I know that issuing a new fixed term tenancy would void the notice, but surely clarifying to the tenant that they will be required to pay rent after the notice date while still in the property wouldn't?

    Any advice would be much appreciated.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards