Notice to leave property - confusion

goRt

Colincbayley wrote: »

Way too much detail, you are showing all your cards ( which are not very good )

Just email them and say you have decided to stay in your lovely home, leave it at that.

It's already sent

I think the OP's position is:

You've stated your intention to leave, therefore no S21 is required, you've re-confirmed that you were leaving.
Your posts indicate that the LL has new tenants and a new AST for them, if a deposit's been taken then consideration will have taken place; therefore the LL is obliged to house new tenants.
If you don't vacate or cause the new tenants to not be able to take possession on 31st March, then you'll be liable for costs
If you don't vacate then a possession order is required from a DJ, if you still don't vacate then a court appointed bailiff will be required (together with the police if there's trouble)

Can you please add facts so that the above can be confirmed

Jowo_2

silvercar wrote: »

More questions than answers:

If a tenant can withdraw notice at any time, or just not move out, is a tenant's notice worth the paper its written on?

It's a contract. When a party breaches a contract its up to the other party to enforce the terms through the legal process, in this case, with a possession order granted in court. If tenants don't leave a property when a landlord wishes them to, then a landlord has to take them to court to gain possession.

Ultimately, tenants can stay in a property while a landlord doesn't have legal possession of the property. So yes, the tenant's original notice isn't worth the paper its written on now they've retracted it.

silvercar

You've stated your intention to leave, therefore no S21 is required, you've re-confirmed that you were leaving.

Agreed, but should the tenant refuse to leave, the landlord then needs to get a court order. As you say:

If you don't vacate then a possession order is required from a DJ, if you still don't vacate then a court appointed bailiff will be required (together with the police if there's trouble)

At which point OP would be liable for the court and baliff costs.

The only legal way a landlord can secure an eviction is by going to court and this takes time and money.

I don't know that a tenancy is created before the tenants take possession. The landlord would have to reimburse the costs to the potential new tenants, to get this money back from OP would need court action as it wouldn't be covered in the current tenancy agreement.

Where the tenant goes from here is difficult, stay a day over the existing fixed term and be legally obliged to give a month's notice to end on a rent day or move out to a hotel or family/ friends for the interrim. At the same time the tenant needs at least a section 21 if they stand a chance of council housing. Even then there is the risk that the landlord will tell the council, if asked, that the tenant gave notice first.

RabbitMad

Jowo wrote: »

Obligation to pay a certain level of rent does not change at all - its set by the contract and there are proper procedures to be followed, should a landlord decide to increase the rent, which they typically do to match changes in local market rent and not to 'punish' tenants.

It wouldn't be rent, it would be something else that I can't remember of the top of my head (mens profit maybe?)

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Kindly explain which law or statute entitles any landlord to claim double rent from a tenant. If you can.

Sorry N79 beat me to it.

N79 wrote: »

Distress for Rent act 1737 Section 18. (You didn't expect an answer did you!)

According to the OPSI database it has never been repealed although it is so old you would need access to a law library to check this fact. It has been mentioned in the past by a LLZone regular although I think as a bit of a joke. I am not aware of anyone actually trying to use it and I suspect that you will get laughed at in any lower court, even if it is valid (and I am not saying it is).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/apgb/1737/capgb_17370019_en_1#l1g11

The LL has entered into a contract based upon the notice given by the OP. The LL will now be in breach of contract with the potential tenants because of the OP's actions. Why shouldn't the LL pass this cost on to the OP.

BitterAndTwisted

I believe that the new tenant's contract is not legally binding until they have possession of the property. Should the agents be able to find the prospective tenant another property then they will already have paid for the credit-checks and whatnot and would not need to be charged again. Here's hoping that this is what will happen

MortgageMamma

Ok an update

I've spoken to the letting agent and they are insistent that we leave on or before 31st March and will not let us retract our notice

I understand this completely from the landlords position and that of the prospective tenants and understand that I am mostly to blame here.

The letting agent has stated they have a legally binding agreement with the prospective new tenants that they have to honour and that cannot be amended at this stage. My partner pointed out that the tenants have not moved in yet so how can it be legally binding? (we signed our tenancy agreement and inventory on the day we moved in and assume this is standard practice).

What will happen now? will the LA send us a formal S21 demanding posession in TWO months or can we be forced out on 31st March?

And, if we cannot leave by 31st March would we be liable for any costs?

MM

goRt

MortgageMamma wrote: »

The letting agent has stated they have a legally binding agreement with the prospective new tenants that they have to honour and that cannot be amended at this stage. My partner pointed out that the tenants have not moved in yet so how can it be legally binding? (we signed our tenancy agreement and inventory on the day we moved in and assume this is standard practice).

Your business partner???
Seriously, as I posted above, consideration has taken place (a deposit has been paid) therefore a contract is in place

MortgageMamma wrote: »

What will happen now? will the LA send us a formal S21 demanding posession in TWO months or can we be forced out on 31st March?

You've already stated twice that you've given notice, you can't retract
You can stay until such time as the legal process has been followed, this depends on how busy the court in your area is

MortgageMamma wrote: »

And, if we cannot leave by 31st March would we be liable for any costs?

You'll become liable for all costs

franklee

Jowo wrote: »

Though I've been a bit blunt, this advice is completely false and totally unhelpful.

Obligation to pay a certain level of rent does not change at all - its set by the contract and there are proper procedures to be followed, should a landlord decide to increase the rent, which they typically do to match changes in local market rent and not to 'punish' tenants.

Actually I think it's true, a landlord can charge double rent if a tenant reneges on their own notice, details to the law can be found on landlordzone forums.

EDIT: Opps I see N79 has already posted details.

tbs624

Colincbayley wrote: »

:rotfl:I've heard it all now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rotfl:

You may want to have a look at a post from Jeffrey over at LLzone , before you wet yourself Colin

See here

RabbitMad

MortgageMamma wrote: »

Ok an update

I've spoken to the letting agent and they are insistent that we leave on or before 31st March and will not let us retract our notice

I understand this completely from the landlords position and that of the prospective tenants and understand that I am mostly to blame here.

The letting agent has stated they have a legally binding agreement with the prospective new tenants that they have to honour and that cannot be amended at this stage. My partner pointed out that the tenants have not moved in yet so how can it be legally binding?

They can inst all they like, but if you don't move out there is nothing they can do but go down the legal route.

Only mostly to blame?

They don't have to honour the contract but it will cost them.

The only thing is that the prospective tenants don't have a tenancy, but they do have a contract.