When do you move out when served notice?

Doooford

Thanks Franklee, I do remember that after 6 months noth of us had the option togive 2 months notice. Didn't read this when we signed up though, so I'll take credit for that oversight

franklee

Doooford wrote: »

I think this may be the case anyway, as It looks like we actually wont be able to pay the overlap. We haven't paid anything for the new place, but agreements have been signed.

That's odd, usually an agent takes money for referencing and maybe a holding deposit, does the referencing and takes money for deposit and first months rent before the tenancy agreement is signed.

Anyway obviously if (and I don't know if you are without having paid anything) if you are bound to take the new place then you don't want to be breaking that which does cut your ability to negotiate.

Ideally you should have negotiated the flexibility in dates and rent owed first and got that confirmed in writing before committing to somewhere else

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.

Really needs to be in writing in case it gets disputed later on.

I think you have been too nice and it's backfired Not your fault, you weren't to know your current landlord would be so money grubbing and ungrateful you worked so hard to accommodate his wanting to move back.

EDIT: PS Thinking on the lack of payment, neat summary of Contract Law Basics- England/Wales here:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5470

Planner

franklee wrote: »

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. Whats the point in speaking in general terms when a specific question has been asked, especially, as in this case when those general terms lead to the wrong conclusions?

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 arent any negotiating points here as what has been served isnt a s.21 notice the way you have highlighted above. 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 You mean the breakclause deadline. 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.

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 Yes there is, and this is a perfect example of a s.21 that isnt a s.21. 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 It is right, it just shouldnt be considered a s.21, but instead a form of 2 months notice to activate the breakclause. 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 Thats just the point, it isnt being taken at face value. Its being taken as a s.21 notice which it isnt. 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. Yes, as I alluded to in my first post with a big BUT. The big but being in this instance that by ignoring the landlords activation of a breakclause, rather than a s.21 notice, the o/p would potentially line themselves up for significant costs above and beyond what would be incurred by ignoring a traditional s.21 or s.8 notice.


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 If they dont move as required, they have broken the breakclause. On what grounds would an S8 be served in this case and why bother? A s.8 would likley be quicker as no s.21 has been served and cant expire until the end of the fixed term in 4 months time (hence why it isnt a s.21 notice).

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 And yet still signed a contract with a breakcaluse. 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 Hes budged three weeks.

Franklee, while your posts are normally broadly correct, a little innovation and understanding is often needed when faced with something a little out of the ordinary such as this. Cutting and pasting a 'everything I know about renting' answer simply isnt goign to cut it in some (such as this situations.

You are suggesting that the O/P holds all the cards. I would suggest that they are likley to turn out to be very expensive cards if the o/p doesnt move out at the end of the break period, above and beyond the usual s.21/s.8 'staying until a court order' situation which you obviously think this is.

franklee

Planner wrote: »

Whats the point in speaking in general terms when a specific question has been asked, especially, as in this case when those general terms lead to the wrong conclusions?

The OP needed to know in general terms that a tenant can stay on past S21 expiry so that they can use this point to negotiate. As it turns out if they are committed to the new place then they have weakened their position. But 1. I made that point before the OP said s/he has signed elsewhere and 2. If the OP had been given this general advice in their previous thread then perhaps they would not have made the error of signing up to the new place too soon.

Planner wrote: »

You are suggesting that the O/P holds all the cards.

I haven't said the OP holds all the cards, see post #7:

franklee wrote: »

Really the tenant should have negotiated this before signing up to a new property, it's too late afterwards.

Not sure how you take this as meaning the tenant holds all the cards either:

franklee wrote: »

Anyway obviously if (and I don't know if you are without having paid anything) if you are bound to take the new place then you don't want to be breaking that which does cut your ability to negotiate.

Planner wrote: »

A s.8 would likley be quicker as no s.21 has been served and cant expire until the end of the fixed term in 4 months time (hence why it isnt a s.21 notice).

Can you say why you think the S8 is needed, I really can't see why.

The existing S21 can be actioned as normal if it was used in a valid way to exercise the break as it would have brought the fixed term to an end leaving the tenant who overstays the S21 on a periodic tenancy. There is no need for the landlord to go back to square one with an S8 unless the break clause or the landlord's notice given to exercise it was invalid, which we do not as yet know as we haven't' seen enough details. Then again if the break clause or the landlord's notice given to exercise it was invalid, I can't see how an S8 would be of use. Perhaps if you said why you think an S8 may be needed?

Note that the contract says an S21 is to be used to exercise the break, hence that's what the landlord would need to serve and it's what the OP thinks they were given (why the contract says an S21 is to be served and not landlord's notice is beyond me, but I've seen it done quite a few times in other contracts) :

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.

1975damo

:beer: Buy a house, you hippy. This will solve future issues you may have. Or just buy a caravan or canal boat and get moved in. Hope this helps.

girleight@

Could you not give the landlord the option of
1. You stay the entire notice period of 2 months
2. You leave early at a time of your choosing and only pay for how long you stay

It seems to me that by leaving early you are doing a favour to the landlord and they should do you a favour by letting you choose exactly when. Otherwise you could refuse to leave early.

Hopefully the landlord would choose the latter. If they are in a difficult situation maybe they will be sympathetic to yours?

Doooford

Thanks Damo,
We have a friend who is just buying a boat, £40k all in. Thing is, the baby might crawl overboard, so until he's a bit older, I think that one's out. Caravans I have problems with, not sure why, I think it's because they are small.
Any road, it's a different kettle of fish borrowing (buying over 25 years from a bank) a house down here than up north. They want much more than some old copper pipe and 2 fresh trout for a deposit. You were just lucky that your mortgage lender happened to need a bag of potatoes when you pitched up :beer:

Not to comment on your personal circumstance, but I do wish that people would stop using the term "buy" when they mean get a mortgage. I do have trouble biting my tongue when my house "owning" acquaintances talk about how it's better to buy when in actual fact they are living in a property with negative equity, on an interest only mortgage, and paying a similar amount to rental charges.
On a separate note, we have devised a four year plan to "own" a house, and if that doesn’t work, then we're going to get a mortgage! :rotfl:

All this moving is exciting anyway, not knowing where you'll be living next year is a real buzz, and not stressful at all. Ok, that last bit is complete twoddle

Doooford

girleight@ wrote: »

Could you not give the landlord the option of
1. You stay the entire notice period of 2 months
2. You leave early at a time of your choosing and only pay for how long you stay

It seems to me that by leaving early you are doing a favour to the landlord and they should do you a favour by letting you choose exactly when. Otherwise you could refuse to leave early.

Hopefully the landlord would choose the latter. If they are in a difficult situation maybe they will be sympathetic to yours?

Thanks for your advice. The problem is that the rent needs to be paid this Friday so negotiating time is running out. It's either pay the full £800 to keep the whole month, or pay £200ish just for the week.
Actually, I'm going to call the agency now and see what happens if we don't accept the compromise!
Wait for update...

1975damo

Doooford wrote: »

Thanks Damo,
We have a friend who is just buying a boat, £40k all in. Thing is, the baby might crawl overboard, so until he's a bit older, I think that one's out. Caravans I have problems with, not sure why, I think it's because they are small.
Any road, it's a different kettle of fish borrowing (buying over 25 years from a bank) a house down here than up north. They want much more than some old copper pipe and 2 fresh trout for a deposit. You were just lucky that your mortgage lender happened to need a bag of potatoes when you pitched up :beer:

Not to comment on your personal circumstance, but I do wish that people would stop using the term "buy" when they mean get a mortgage. I do have trouble biting my tongue when my house "owning" acquaintances talk about how it's better to buy when in actual fact they are living in a property with negative equity, on an interest only mortgage, and paying a similar amount to rental charges.
On a separate note, we have devised a four year plan to "own" a house, and if that doesn’t work, then we're going to get a mortgage! :rotfl:

All this moving is exciting anyway, not knowing where you'll be living next year is a real buzz, and not stressful at all. Ok, that last bit is complete twoddle

So in 4 years you will have a mortgage then, my friend.
But here is an idea for you - YOU CAN buy a house now - http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/202743365/Animal_House_inflatable_jumper_inflatable_house:T
/showimage.html
It's even got a ginger fox on it - just like yourself! Good luck:easter: