Notice from landlord

LydiaJ

I've learnt loads from coming on here. It's made me think a bit though.

A few years ago, we rented a house privately (without a LA). It was the usual 6 month AST arrangement. After we'd been there 5 months, the LL wrote to us and said they were very sorry, but their plans hadn't worked out, and they needed to live in their house again, so they needed to give us 2 months' notice (ie for us to leave after we had been there 7 months).

We weren't pleased, but guess what... we looked around for another house to rent, found one, and moved out in plenty of time before the 2 months were up. The LL gave us back our deposit (minus a bit for a venetian blind our toddler had chewed) and refunded the rent for the part month at the end because the start date for the new house was a bit earlier than the end of the notice period on the old one, so we moved out at that point, meaning they could move in sooner than they had hoped.

It never crossed my mind to stay put and wait to be evicted, or to question whether they had served the correct notice to get us out or anything. As far as I was concerned, I'd signed to say the contract could be terminated by the LL with two months' notice, so I honoured that agreement. I'd do the same if it happened again.

So... is that unusual? Were we naive? Or is it the way the majority of tenants behave, but it's just that the troublesome ones are the ones that people post about on here?

Hopejack

I think most people would move without any issues. There may be a little resentment there as you hadn't been in the place long and it's the upheaval etc but I think it does tend to be more troublesome tenants who start digging their heels in etc. My opinion anyway fwiw.

ETA - I didn't read it properly and saw you had only been in the place 5 months when he served notice - this is of course entirely legal - he could have served notice from your first day in the property as long as you still had your 6 month in the place. The fact you came to an arrangement with regard to rent rebate/discount because he didn't give you 2 months doesn't change things. I suppose it suited you and him in that respect but equally if you had not found a place, he would have had to wait the 2 months!

teeni

often especially if people are on low income and cant afford another deposit and months rent in advance, they need to have the extra time to find somewhere affordable, also a landlord expects a tenant to look after his property and pay the rent so why shouldnt the tenant expect the landlord to meet their legal obligations and give them the correct leal notice at the termination of the tenancy.

Jowo_2

LydiaJ wrote: »

It never crossed my mind to stay put and wait to be evicted, or to question whether they had served the correct notice to get us out or anything. As far as I was concerned, I'd signed to say the contract could be terminated by the LL with two months' notice, so I honoured that agreement. I'd do the same if it happened again.

So... is that unusual? Were we naive? Or is it the way the majority of tenants behave, but it's just that the troublesome ones are the ones that people post about on here?

Remember that forums like these only report issues, not the fact that most tenancies don't have significant problems and many landlord/tenants can reach mutually satisfactory decisions, either sticking to their legal obligations or making a decision that both are happy with.

The advice to tenants about staying put until the landlord seeks a court order tends to relate to benefit claimants who are most likely to contact their local council to be housed and most likely to be told to remain in the property by them.

There is a social housing crisis and allocation is made to the neediest with the homeless treated as the highest priority and they have a statutory obligation to assist certain groups of housing applicants. In many areas, the councils can barely cope with housing those in high priority, let alone anyone else on their waiting list, just due to the sheer demand and their lack of resources. Therefore, they tell many of the people seeking housing from them to ignore the notice and stay in the property until the landlord gains a court order for possession.

This is why many landlords won't let to HB/LHA tenants - they are much harder to evict.

You can see the type of issue on the following thread - a woman with a child and a bankruptcy order cannot afford the rent on her 4 bedroom property - the council have just told her to stay put or they won't provide any assistance whatsoever. That's about the sum total of their advice and support at the moment - stay in accommodation that you can't afford and come back when the landlord tries to evict you.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2218089

franklee

Hi LydiaJ,

Obviously this is all going to vary depending on people's individual circumstances but some of the issues that come up are:

1. If tenant asked for for and was promised a long term let it's a pain having to pay out to move again after just six months. Costs include removal fees, agency fees, referencing etc. Also if the landlord isn't prepared to be flexible on the date he lets the tenant go then the tenant may have to pay for a overlap where they have both properties at once. Also it can be a problem to find somewhere new that's as nice, near school, work etc. depending on area or if the tenant has pets or children.

2. Some landlords serve a Section 21 notice requiring possession as routine to all tenants as a precaution even if they don't intend the tenant should leave. Thus these tenants get used to ignoring section 21 notices. This practise is nicknamed the Sword of Damocles (see my sig).

3. Anyone wanting a council house must make sure they don't make themselves intentionally homeless, so they must do as the council advise as others have explained already.

4. If the tenant has lost their job or had their hours cut since they last moved it may be harder to get a new private rental. Likewise they may not have enough savings for the deposit and rent upfront etc. as others have said. Not to mention any hassles of getting the deposit back.

The problem is that we have so many accidental landlords who are really looking to sell and use the tenant as a short term measure to get some cash in. This makes a tenant's life difficult with viewings and having to move on unexpectedly. Unfortunately that's the lot of a tenant these days, no security of tenure even for the good tenants. This may not be a problem for the younger tenants who rent unfurnished, but for those with families who rent furnished moving house is hard work. At least your landlord let you go early once you found somewhere else and you didn't have to put up with viewings while you were trying to move, both of which help.