Notice to leave property - confusion

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

Thanks:)

Your welcome

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

Fair enough.

tbs624 wrote: »

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"

And the difficulty will always being showing that the former T is, in fact a trespasser and not still a T.

tbs624 wrote: »

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".

I agree - much like how many courts seem to view the 3x deposit protection "penalty".

clutton_2

could you put your stuff in storage and stay with friends/family while you house hunt ?

G_M

In post 35 Fatballz queried whether notice was actually given. This seems a critical, and as far as I can see, unanswered, question.

Th OP said:

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

That would not constitute notice.

Could the OP confirm the precise wording of his original letter?

RobertoMoir

N79 wrote: »

Your welcome

Fair enough.
And the difficulty will always being showing that the former T is, in fact a trespasser and not still a T.
[/INDENT]I agree - much like how many courts seem to view the 3x deposit protection "penalty".

Wouldn't the T giving notice (and I appreciate that may be questionable but work with me here) demonstrate that they were surrendering the tenancy on the date the notice ran out?

N79

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Wouldn't the T giving notice (and I appreciate that may be questionable but work with me here) demonstrate that they were surrendering the tenancy on the date the notice ran out?

Not really in my opinion. Any actual surrender should have to have been by deed. Even if we ignore this point and allow written notice instead then any express surrender can not operate at a future date - hence this is not applicable here.

The other type of surrender is surrender by operation of the law but here the changing actions of the T make this far from clear cut. Normally, the actions of the T and the LL would need to be such as to show that the tenancy was surrendered. I am not aware of (TBS might be) and doubt the existance of a case where a T remained in possession but a court decided that the Ts actions implied surrender anyway.

Either way, only a court will be able to rule on whether the T's and LL's actions constitutue surrender by operation of the law. Given the statutory protections for Ts of the housing acts which automatically give rise to periodic tenancies it seems unlikely, in my opinion, that a court will rule in the LL's favour. Add in a tearful single mother benefit claimant with children and many tales of woe (as in this thread) and the chances of a lower court penalising the T and ruling in the evil LL's favour diminish to vanishingly small proportions.

silvercar

So if MortgageMamma's notice can be retracted and the landlord I'm guessing only has this property to let (as he's a farmer of limited means) who reimburses the new tenants cost?

Fire_Fox

G_M wrote: »

In post 35 Fatballz queried whether notice was actually given. This seems a critical, and as far as I can see, unanswered, question.

Th OP said:

That would not constitute notice.

Could the OP confirm the precise wording of his original letter?

Surely the argument is going to be that if the letter was not intended to be formal notice to quit why has the tenant left it until after new tenants were found to say so, and why is she now trying to rescind notice she doesn't think she served? Answer is it was intended to be notice but her circumstances have changed.

Planner

I would ask:

1) what statute or otherwise states that a tenant cannot retract their notice?

2) what statute or otherwise gives a landlord power to stop retraction of a tenants notice?

Unless there is a posivite answer to the above, it would follow that the tenancy continues after 31st March on to a Statutory Periodic and will need to be ended via a court order in response to a s.21 or s.8 notice.

Its quite ironic really in seeking to help the LL the O/P has in fact caused (and likley to continue to cause) significant expense. I think the moral of the story is that tenancys are business arrangements and need to be treated strictly as such. Even the best personal intentions in such situations can meet with unfortunate consequences.

In terms of the OP liability to costs associated with the other people who where looking to move in shortly after the OP left, I think that will be a sticky matter for small claims should the LL choose to try and reclaim costs associated with the frustrated contract.

N79

silvercar wrote: »

So if MortgageMamma's notice can be retracted and the landlord I'm guessing only has this property to let (as he's a farmer of limited means) who reimburses the new tenants cost?

The LL - who took the risk by granting a tenancy on a property which did not enjoy vacant possession.

FATBALLZ

Fire_Fox wrote: »

if the letter was not intended to be formal notice to quit why has the tenant left it until after new tenants were found to say so.

The new tenants are irrelevant, they are the landlords problem.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

and why is she now trying to rescind notice she doesn't think she served.

The wording is the critical issue - if the original letter said 'i hope to move out', and then the second (if there was one) says 'i gave notice but i want to retract it' then that looks iffy. But if the second says 'i intended to move out but now i have changed my mind' then notice has still not been given or implied.