How to give a tenant notice

teepoo

Hi All,

I am a resident landlord who is about to give my tenant notice to move out because she broke the contract by smoking in the house (I have given her many verbal warnings).

Can someone confirm that I do not have to give her any written warning before I give her notice?

Does anyone have a sample notice that I can use?

Thanks,
Pete.

clutton_2

if she lives in the house with you - she is probably a lodger and not a tenant - just give her verbal notice of 7 days and tell her she has to go

unless you gave her an AST in which case - .... tell us more - have you already issued a Section 21 ?

btw - smoking in your own home is not illegal - her room is her home

teepoo

We did sign an agreement stating that either party has to give 4 weeks notice.
The agreement also stated that smoking was prohibited in the house.

I would prefer a written notice so that everything is clear and there is no room for dispute.

EDIT: No I did not provide an AST.

Jowo_2

teepoo wrote: »

We did sign an agreement stating that either party has to give 4 weeks notice.
The agreement also stated that smoking was prohibited in the house.

I would prefer a written notice so that everything is clear and there is no room for dispute.

As she's a lodger, she has no security of tenure, nor do you need to give a reason why you are given the notice, nor do you need to give a warning. Just serve a brief polite notice on her and keep a copy of it, make sure it corresponds to the terms on the contract. If she doesn't move out upon the expiration of the notice, change the locks but let her collect her belongings.

teepoo

Should this be sufficient?

[Lodgers name],

I am informing you that I am terminating our lodging agreement effective from today (15-July-2009) and I request that you remove your processions from my house and return the keys before the 15th of August.

[My signiture]

[My name]

15-July-2009

Do I need to state the address?

theartfullodger

Assuming tenant has their own room they are an "Occupier with Basic Protection" - see

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/occupiers_with_basic_protection

Tenant does not have to leave on expiry of valid Notice2Quit and is quite at liberty to await you going to court for a possession order. Others may disagree but that is the law. Quote (from Shelter, the experts in this matter)

You cannot be evicted before your landlord has gone to court and the court has agreed to your landlord regaining possession of the property. The court's permission is on a written notice known as a possession order. The court has no choice but to make a possession order as long as the correct legal procedure has been followed. You will have to leave when the court says so.
After a court order takes effect your landlord can ask the bailiffs to evict you.

If you try and chuck tenant out/harass them you may get into very hot water. Remember tenant may be reading this thread.

I'm sure that as an honourable and decent LL you'll stick to the rules...

Also see
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/housing/private_sector_tenancies.htm#Right_to_stay_in_the_accommodation

Cheers!

Lodger (A Landlord since 2000).

clutton_2

Artful ...... i read the website and did the questionnaire - if OP lives in the same house as his LL and shares living space - then he is not protected --- suggest OP does the questionaire for him/her self

Jowo_2

theartfullodger wrote: »

Assuming tenant has their own room they are an "Occupier with Basic Protection"

That link indicates that it only applies if "you live in the same building as your landlord but you do not share living accommodation with your landlord", therefore it applies to situations where a tenant lives in self-contained accommodation, such as a studio or bedsit in the same building.

If the OP shares amenities, such as a living room, bathroom or kitchen with the occupier, (i.e. shares the accommodation) then they are an excluded occupier

"As an excluded occupier your only right is to stay until your landlord asks you to go or for as long as your written agreement says. Your landlord...doesn't need a court order...The [excluded occupier] You have to leave once the notice expires."

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/excluded_occupiers

theartfullodger

Sorry guys, you's wrong please read the words of Lord Templeman in

Street v. Mountford 1985
House of Lords

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/Street%20%20v%20%20Mountford%20%201985%20.pdf
Excluded occupiers are
e.g. People staying in hostels sharing rooms when not related


Also see

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/freeessays/Land-LawAssignment.php

Why was this decision in Street v Mountford so significant? What was its impact on future cases in the same area? Briefly, it was a highly significant decision from the point of view of lessees (those who enjoy occupation by virtue of a lease) because it prevented landlords from seeking to avoid granting their lessees the protection afforded them by the Rent Acts.

And quite nicely summarising the situation..
http://www.letlink.co.uk/case-law/tenancies/street-v-mountford-1985.html

Particularly
I

In future, courts should look to the tenancy, and its three requirements (not so much to the paper):
- exclusive possession
- payment in the nature of a rent
- term

- it is not what the parties (tenant/landlord) have agreed to or signed up to.. it is what the law says that matters..). And exclusive possession of just-one-room is enough if there is also payment (money or in kind) and a term (1 week, 12 months...)

And, finally..
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/legal-briefing/license-or-lease

Cheers!

Lodger (A Landlord since 2000)

franklee

theartfullodger wrote: »

SAnd, finally..
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/legal-briefing/license-or-lease

Cheers!

Lodger (A Landlord since 2000)

From that link:

In the case of residential occupation there’s a peculiar “grey” area of the law sitting somewhere between the lease and the license. This is the situation where a landlord lives in the building but where the occupiers do not share facilities – they have their own.
This is known as an “occupier with basic protection”, someone who does not have the full rights and protection that a tenant would have. Nevertheless, to be certain of being fully lawful when seeking challenged possession, the landlord should apply through the courts for a possession order.

I guess it's been assumed the LL & T "share facilities" in the OP's case.

theartfullodger

I guess it's been assumed the LL & T "share facilities" in the OP's case.

They can share front-door, hall, kitchen, bathroom but as long tenant has exclusive possession of just-one-room he is an "occupier with basic protection".

If, conversely , tenant is sharing bedroom with an unrelated nordic super-model, he would be an "excluded occupier".



Cheers!

Lodger