When do you move out when served notice?

franklee

Welshwoofs wrote: »

The thing is though, the OP has posted about this situation before - here.

He's not turfing them out to be nasty, he needs to move back because his brother is terminally ill.

Now I guess there's all sorts of things the op could do to frustrate matters and make the LL's life hell at this point, but as he's apparently been a good LL.....would they really want to given the circumstances? I know I wouldn't.

It seems that he's willingly making financial compromises (which I'm sure are negotiable, like most things in life) so I can't really see there's any need to get 'heavy' simply because one can legally.

The tenant has done all they can to comply with an unexpected move at a time when they have a new baby. This extra move is costing the tenant removal fees, agents fees, stress and time. Yet the tenant has bent over backwards to meet the landlord's requested deadline. It's unlikely to get a new property available to the exact date, the tenant has done really well getting it only a week early, yet the thanks the tenant gets from the landlord is to charge rent for this extra week. That isn't the tenant getting heavy with their rights, it's the landlord!

If the landlord obstructs this move by insisting on the weeks payment, which the tenant hasn't got, then I'm afraid he has to bear the consequences of the whole thing slipping.

Doooford wrote: »

When being informed of the notice, we were told that preferably the landlord wold like to be in 13 days before he 2 month period, this was verbally relayed though, so no records.

Doooford wrote: »

Thanks clutton, so are you actually saying that our landlord is helping out by letting us only pay up to the 3rd as opposed to the 23rd?

Has the landlord given any ground on these dates? It seems like he is sticking to his origional request of 13 days early without compromise

franklee

Planner wrote: »

Again I think the point his being missed. Lets be clear here that what has been served is not a s.21 notice in the traditional sense. The landlord, for what ever reason, has used a s.21 notice to initiate the breakclause. The s.21 notice should be treated as nothing more than this, as it obviously isnt valid as a s.21 notice.

Therefore all the usuall stuff about not having to move out until a court order is obtained is tricky in this situation. In my opinion not only will the o/p be liable for any costs associated with obtaining a court order (It would have to be a s.8 route by the way not s.21) but there are alo likley to be contracturally liable for the landlords costs in them not moving as they agreed to with the breakclause. This could be substantially and should be avoided.

The o/ps choices would appear somewhat limited.

That's a bit melodramatic, no one is saying this would get so far as court, the suggestion was to know what cards the tenant holds and then negotiate But if it does the costs could go either way or likely IMO each person to pay their own. I doubt a judge would be impressed with a landlord who didn't let a tenant go after serving an S21 for the sake of a weeks rent when the tenant had offered to go 20 days early after the landlord requested 13 days early. It's perverse of the landlord who really does want his property back unexpectedly, and has thus used a break clause to break a fixed term four months early, to stand in the way of letting the tenant go.

Planner

franklee wrote: »

That's a bit melodramatic, no one is saying this would get so far as court, the suggestion was to know what cards the tenant holds and then negotiate But if it does the costs could go either way or likely IMO each person to pay their own. I doubt a judge would be impressed with a landlord who didn't let a tenant go after serving an S21 for the sake of a weeks rent when the tenant had offered to go 20 days early after the landlord requested 13 days early. It's perverse of the landlord who really does want his property back unexpectedly, and has thus used a break clause to break a fixed term four months early, to stand in the way of letting the tenant go.

Hopefully it wont go to court, however it was you that raised the spectre of a court order.

Im obviously banging my head on a brick wall here trying to get the point across that what has been served isnt a s.21 notice in a traditional sense, bit instead a simple notice as per the breakclause given the tenant 2 months notice. If it was a s.21 notice we wouldnt even be having this discussion as the o/p wouldnt have to leave until at least the end of month 12.

As far as I can see, the o/p has no cards to play apart from awaiting removal via a s.8 eviction.

franklee

Planner wrote: »

Hopefully it wont go to court, however it was you that raised the spectre of a court order.

I was speaking generally in that a) the tenant doesn't have to leave when a S21 notice expires and that b) Some landlords here actively encourage tenants to ignore S21 notices.

I did not say this OP should wait till it goes to court, I suggested to use the above as a negotiating point to get the extra weeks rent charge dropped or if the landlord won't agree to this then to wait and arrange a property with a more suitable date so the tenant doesn't have to pay overlapping rent which they can't afford. There should be no problems (other than the landlord not getting his preferred date to move back) if this means slipping past the S21 deadline by a week or so. So long as the tenant keeps the landlord informed that he is still doing his best to find alternative accommodation etc. I do not see it going to court, the tenant will be gone well before that happens.

Planner wrote: »

Im obviously banging my head on a brick wall here trying to get the point across that what has been served isnt a s.21 notice in a traditional sense, bit instead a simple notice as per the breakclause given the tenant 2 months notice. If it was a s.21 notice we wouldnt even be having this discussion as the o/p wouldnt have to leave until at least the end of month 12.

The OP said that s/he was served an S21 and that the break clause specifies a S21 to be used. There is no such thing as a S21 that isn't a S21 in any sense traditional or otherwise. Sometimes S21s are used to invoke break clauses, perhaps that's not right in which case again it's the landlord's problem not the tenant's. Break clauses are often badly written and badly invoked so it is possible the notice isn't valid, we don't know. I don't think a tenant would be penalised for taking the notice they are given at face value even if it was later found to be defective. Not that I can see it makes much difference, the landlord would still need a court order in the same way if the tenant refused to leave, that it's from a break clause makes no difference to the way a S21 would have to be followed up.

Doooford wrote: »

I have just found a sample of the contract (which I got before the contract was ready), and it states:- The tenant agrees that the landlord has the right to terminate the tenancy after the first (insert period) by giving the tenant not less than two months notice in writing by serving a section 21 notice to end the agreement.

Planner wrote: »

As far as I can see, the o/p has no cards to play apart from awaiting removal via a s.8 eviction.

I do not see where a S8 fits into all this, as far as I can tell the tenant hasn't broken any major terms of the tenancy agreement, like being in rent arrears etc. On what grounds would an S8 be served in this case and why bother?

It seems to me the landlord wants his property back unexpectedly (due to terminally ill brother and/or death of parent can't quite figure details) after the tenant had originally established it was intended to be a long term let. Wanting to be helpful the tenant has pulled out all the stops to line up somewhere new, so the landlord just needs to budge a week on the rent and the job is done.

theartfullodger

You don't have to move out when you get a S21...


You don't have to move out when you get a "notice to quit" expired. (after end of fixed period/each periodic period...). [It should say something like "notice2quit expiring on the xxth yyyyymonth 200z..". (There are several grounds leading to notice 2 Quit, Section 21 being but one of many..)

You don't have to move out when you haven't paid the rent for quite some time.....

You don't have to move out when you get a "Possession Order" from the court (with a date & time): Landlord can usually only go to court after Notice2Quit has expired...

You don't have to move out when you get the bailiffs turning up at that date & time - they will carry you out, if you insist. However it is probably better for your self respect if you depart the night before. Bailiffs should be sympathetic & behave (as I'm sure would be the being-evicted-tenant... )

Timescales?? These days probably 4+ months from valid Notice to Quit to the Bailiffs turning up... Many Landlords & agents get notices wrong which mean their court actions are thrown out. The courts/bailiffs are busier than usual nowadays & timescales have lengthened..

Going this route may not of course get you a very good reference...

Cheers!

Lodger

PS Any other views on the 4+ months timescales guess??

sophie_e

Hope this isn't too off-topic..... As you've just had a baby, if your money really is tight then you might find you qualify for some housing benefit. An overlap of up to 4 weeks can also be paid by housing benefit if when you move it is shown to be unavoidable to secure a new home (so you don't end up homeless in the housing department a week later I suppose!). Good luck

Doooford

I will dig out the notice tomorrow and put the main points up.

That's the attic room half cleared, taking a bit of time between the needs of a baby. What a challenge! :rotfl:

Doooford

I think due to my earnings that housing benefit is not an option, I'll check tomorrow. My salary is around 32k, sounds more than it seems, but that is completely supporting the needs of the 3 of us!

franklee

Doooford wrote: »

I will dig out the notice tomorrow and put the main points up.

You may want to check for this:

From OFT 356 Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements:

"3.65 Landlords sometimes choose to use a 'break' clause allowing them to bring the agreement to an end on service of two months' notice. We would object to such a term if it was not balanced by a similar provision allowing the tenant to give notice in the same way."

OFT = Office of fair trading.

May be a bargaining chip.

franklee

theartfullodger wrote: »

Any other views on the 4+ months timescales guess??

Sounds about right to me, Knowing the worst a tenant could inflict is worth while but I would not recommend the OP go that far. The OP just needs to know the background to get a bit of room for negotiating leaving the date. IMO the landlord is bonkers to quibble over a weeks rent in the OP's case where the OP has tried to be helpful.