Notice to leave property - confusion

tbs624

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitMad
Given that you have given notice, if you stay beyond it the LL is entitled to claim double rent from you.

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.

Jowo - what gets posted up on these threads does not constitute "advice" and that includes your own. OPs should always seek clarification of other posters comments /suggestions from a qualified source.

Perhaps best not to be so hasty in describing other posts as being "completely false and totally unhelpful" in this case?

Jowo_2

tbs624 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitMad
Given that you have given notice, if you stay beyond it the LL is entitled to claim double rent from you.




Jowo - what gets posted up on these threads does not constitute "advice" and that includes your own. OPs should always seek clarification from a qualified source.

Perhaps best not to be so hasty in describing other posts as being "completely false and totally unhelpful"?

I thanked the poster for the correction but it sounds like the OP has got more chance of the local squire nobbing the local virgin due to an ancient law than being billed double the rent for staying past the expiry of the fixed term.

tbs624

Jowo wrote: »

I thanked the poster for the correction but it sounds like the OP has got more chance of the local squire nobbing the local virgin due to an ancient law than being billed double the rent for staying past the expiry of the fixed term.

Oh dear.

Read this law report from the Independent, case in the late 90s, ruling seems to make things pretty clear.

Legal firm's comments on the issue here

FATBALLZ

MortgageMamma wrote: »

I wrote to the letting agent letting them know that I hoped to move out at the end of my tenancy

I could be wrong, but if you wrote and explicitly stated you 'hoped' to move out, then that doesn't sound like you actually did give notice. What exactly have you given the landlord/agent in terms of notice?

Your situation appears to be either:

1. You didn't actually give notice, in which case you are entitled to stay until the landlord gives you two months notice and then a court order to boot you out. If this is the case the landlord screwed up in signing a contract he couldn't guarantee honouring with the new tenant.

2. You did give notice and have changed your mind but the landlord cannot allow you to stay without breaching a contract with the new tenant. I'm not 100% sure on the legalities of this but I'd imagine you legally have to move out and will be in breach of contract (and liable for the landlords losses) if you don't, if this is the case it is you who have screwed up.

puddy

regarding your deposit and rent in advance situation, surely you have a deposit held with your current landlord who will reinburse this when you move out, therefore you do have monies to move??

i think you#re going to just have to do a lot of ringing round, probably in areas that you might not have previously considered in order to find somewhere that takes hb. on a reference from your current landlord you may find someone who is ok with it, without a guarentor

you also say you are divorced? can your ex provide some help as i assume they are his children you are with at the moment? could he be the guarentor?


remember even if you stay until you are evicted, you wont be placed in council accommodation straight away, you'll be in a b&b or hostel and not necessarily for the short term either

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

Oh dear.

Read this law report from the Independent, case in the late 90s, ruling seems to make things pretty clear.

Legal firm's comments on the issue here

Welcome back TBS.

I would disagree that that case makes this easy to enforce. Indeed in that case the LL failed to get an award for double rent.

The case raised a high bar due to having to meet the first of the judges tests:

"a) the tenant holding over after his own notice to quit was in fact a trespasser."

This will be very difficult to do given the various protection from illegal eviction legislation knocking around for AST Ts these days. As you are aware, a notice by itself does not mean the surrender of a tenancy (as it is neither a deed nor is this surrender by operation of the law in any form as I would understand it unless the LL acts in such a way so as to turn this action into a surrender, nor is there an implied surrender) and without surrender the 1988 housing act S5 (2) provisions do not apply - hence the tenancy would still be in force so the T would not be a trespasser.

This will be a high (and expensive) test for relatively little gain, even if it can every be passed.

surreybased

Hi,

Look like the advice from the others is that you'll need to move out on the 31st March. Easy to say I know, but don't panic too much yet - there is still time to find somewhere. Not sure what area you're in but I'm sure you'll find a rental property - even one that takes HB. As suggested earlier, just hit the phones and check with letting agents. The council should also be able to help you and let you know what LLs accept HB. I was a LL for a while and let my house to a tenant who was on HB. The council bonded the deposit and paid the rent 4 weekly.

I know it's so worrying but you'll find a solution - best bet is to focus your efforts on finding a new place.

Good Luck - let us know how you're getting on

Fire_Fox

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? (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

I really don't think you do understand. Your contract is coming to an end on 31 March as you served notice, after this you are basically squatting. There is already a legally binding contract in place with the new tenants, but there is not a tenancy in place until they take possession. If the new tenants are not given vacant possession the landlord will be in breach of contract to the new tenants. The landlord will have to pay for their alternative accommodation and he will have to get a court order to evict you. You will lose and you will have all the costs awarded against you which you clearly cannot afford. Sorry to be harsh as I don't in any way wish this to happen, so you need to move on time even if you end up in somewhere unsuitable for a while.

tbs624

N79 wrote: »

Welcome back TBS.

Thanks:)

N79 wrote: »

I would disagree that that case makes this easy to enforce. Indeed in that case the LL failed to get an award for double rent.

The link was not given as a suggestion that the case *would* make it easier, merely that it is one of the standard cases which are put forward on the subject of defining how the DFRA may/may not be used.

The LL failed in the appeal case because he had tried to effectively "have his cake and eat it", when a tenancy determination clause was brought into play by the T. The LL initially pointed out that the notice was ineffective due to a date error and argued that the tenancy should continue, invoicing the T for rent.

When the T got judgement that the notice *was* effective, the LL argued that, in that case , the DFRA should mean that he was entitled to the double value, ie that the T had stayed beyond the date on which his notice would have become effective.

His Lordship held that where the T had stayed put because the LL asserted that the T had to continue, then S18 didn't apply.

"The right to double rent arose only when the tenant, holding over after he had served a notice to quit, was in fact a trespasser and the landlord treated him as such"

The courts will be reluctant to apply the double value, because the effect of the law is seen as "penal", but that's not the same thing as saying "you just can't do that, there is no such law".

Edit: Further link on interpretation of Distress for Rent Act here, from Painsmiths

Fire_Fox

Another thought. If the OP and her partner are claiming LHA now they have no other income, presumably they will not be able to claim LHA on a tenancy that has legally come to an end? May have to repay any overpayment.