Being Asked to Vacate - Need Help (Tenancy Agreement Attached)

sooz

joshyblind wrote: »

If we go on the fact that the bulgarians aren't exactly that clued up, can I have confirmation that if you have an AST you have to be given 2 months notice? (Regardless of any other factors)

Yes - if you had a valid AST, you would have to be given 2 month's notice, which cannot end before the end of the fixed term.

I take it you are the OP's other half.

It appears that you do not have a valid AST, as already stated here.

However, given that the Bulgarians didn't really seem to have a clue what they were doing, you could try telling them that they need to give you a minimum two month's notice.

joshyblind

Yes I am the other half, and yes sooz that's what I was hinting at, even if this contract is still not legally binding in any sense my presumptions are that they are not aware of this.

Haushinka

Given the bulgarians don't have a clue - The "agreement" does state "For letting a furnished dwelling on an assured short hold tenancy under section 20 of the housing act 1988 as amended by the housing act 1996"

With presenting them with just that - can we still suggest that they need to give us a minimum of 2 months?

We can just "assume" it's valid for our own purposes at this stage.

barnaby-bear

N79 wrote: »

They can sublet if it is not forbidden by their tenancy agreement. Nearly all tenancy templates have a no subletting clause without the LLs consent (mine certainly do). Without the clause though then there would be no problem with subletting.

However, you are correct in that an AST can not be issued to a lodger as the housing act requires an AST to be for the sole possession of the Ts (ie no live in LLs). In this case the agreement that the OP has is not valid and the OP should have been offered a licence to occupy.

OP I'm sorry to have to tell you that your agreement is almost certainly invalid and that as a lodger you have almost no legal rights. You can be evicted at any time and with any notice. I suggest that you try to negotiate with your LL for the extension you want.

It might also be worth getting in contact with shelter who can take the time to go over your personal circumstances.

Agree thery were lodgers - but when the bulgarians moved out what on earth did they become, no live in LL?

Haushinka

Also, are the bulgarians at any fault with presenting us with an invalid "tenancy agreement"?

barnaby-bear

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Agree thery were lodgers - but when the bulgarians moved out what on earth did they become, no live in LL?

And when the bulgarians moved out so no LL living there if not lodgers - surely 3 people in two unrelated households falls into HMO so the bulgarians by instigating the situation have become responsible for the HMO and the big heap of legalities... sounds like they are on dodgy ground.... The original LL should have an agent other than the tenant in the country to be legal as should the bulgarians if not in the country if this was an AST.... call their bluff and scare them with threats of reporting them?

Haushinka

barnaby-bear wrote: »

And when the bulgarians moved out so no LL living there if not lodgers - surely 3 people in two unrelated households falls into HMO so the bulgarians by instigating the situation have become responsible for the HMO and the big heap of legalities... sounds like they are on dodgy ground.... The original LL should have an agent other than the tenant in the country to be legal as should the bulgarians if not in the country if this was an AST.... call their bluff and scare them with threats of reporting them?

Ah, but the original LL does have an agent in this country - her sister, who has apparently only ever visited 2/3 times throughout there stay - but she arranges all repairs etc. So I think that blows that idea out of the water :mad:

N79

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Agree thery were lodgers - but when the bulgarians moved out what on earth did they become, no live in LL?

They remain lodgers. The law allows for live in LLs to be temporarily absent without a change in status. The length of time for temporarily is not fixed and can be very long. For example if a lodger lives with a live in LL who dies then they remain a lodger even though they may effectively gain sole possession for the period of probate eg until relatives sell the property. No AST is ever formed as the LL and their successors retain access rights. No further rights are gained by the lodger.

The same appears to apply in the OPs case. They originally had a live in LL who then went away for a period during which they retained access rights to the property.

TomBridges

If you have an AST your deposit should be in a tenancy deposit scheme.. If it not, the LL cannot serve a section 21 notice on you.

sooz

TomBridges wrote: »

If you have an AST your deposit should be in a tenancy deposit scheme.. If it not, the LL cannot serve a section 21 notice on you.

Tom - their AST is invalid, & they are not tenants but lodgers.