House put on market 3 months before end of tenancy agreement

Doooford

I may be completely missing something, so excuse me if this has been answered. But what would happen in the following example:-

An S21 notice is not served, and the house doesn't sell immediately. In this case we will stay on past Septemeber. Would we then need to sort out a new agreement, or is there something that comes into effect autimatically to make the agrreement a rolling one?
I am speaking to the LL tonight to fill in all of the blanks for us and them. But I'm still a bit hazy on this, and I know they are clueless with all of this so I need to be able to know what I'm talking about!

tbs624

Doooford wrote: »

An S21 notice is not served, and the house doesn't sell immediately. In this case we will stay on past Septemeber. Would we then need to sort out a new agreement, or is there something that comes into effect autimatically to make the agrreement a rolling one?

Yes, the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 ( google it - use OPSI) and look at ss5/6 No new agreement necessary - all the terms from the original Fixed Term stand , bar the "determination" of the contract, ie when it ends - two months notice from LL/one from you, as described above.

Evilm

It may seem early but the markets at the moment it would be unusual to get a buyer quicker than a month. The legal and financial stuff regularly takes about 6 weeks to 2 months so its unlikely that it would get to completion before the end of the fixed term.

I agree with all the quiet enjoyment stuff above. I would try to have a talk with the LL to check exactly what his intentions are and whether the sale is for investment purposes and you may therefore not have to move.

Its not really nice that he went ahead without talking to you to explain though.

Good luck.

franklee

Evilm wrote: »

It may seem early but the markets at the moment it would be unusual to get a buyer quicker than a month. The legal and financial stuff regularly takes about 6 weeks to 2 months so its unlikely that it would get to completion before the end of the fixed term.

I agree with all the quiet enjoyment stuff above. I would try to have a talk with the LL to check exactly what his intentions are and whether the sale is for investment purposes and you may therefore not have to move.

I don't think anyone is expecting the sale to complete before the end of the fixed term, in this market there are plenty of properties been for sale for months or even years. The point was should a tenant live with the disruption of viewings for that long when the tenant is paying a lot of dosh in order to call that property home. Fortunately my agreement says viewings only to be allowed in the last month of the tenancy, certainly I'd not want to live with them for any longer than that. Even then viewings have to be those that the tenant agrees to, including if the tenant wants to be present, the tenant can refuse etc.

It isn't realistic for a landlord to have both full rent income and viewings to attract a sale for any length of time much as they may want to have their cake and eat it.

Doooford

Many thanks for all of your responses. I am going to discuss with the LL tonight over coming to an arangement. Basically I see the quiet enjoyment clause being completely disregarded as soon as viewings start. So I'm going to offer a 25% decrease in rent to allow viewings, or they will just have to wait until a month before the end of the tenancy.
Let's wait and see!

Doooford

Need some advice. Have been informed by some very help on here that the "quiet enjoyment" clause trumps the "allowing access at reasonable hours in the day with prospective tenants or purchasers of the premises" clause.
Are there any cases that have been set with this ruling? Our LL is preparing to bring down the "Iron Fist" even though we are 9 months in to a 12 month contract and basically just don't want people in our home!
Any quick advice would be massively appreciated :beer:

Doooford

Any experts on quiet enjoyment?
Bit of a bump I'm afraid!

franklee

This post contains a useful link:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=33388305&postcount=26

Doooford

franklee wrote: »

This post contains a useful link:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=33388305&postcount=26

Thanks Franklee.
Do you know of a solid case that we can state to go back to the LL and tell them to back off? I am getting some great advice, but everything so far sounds like we'll have to challenge the point in court. Surely there is something in print that can just nip this in the bud? :beer:

sequence

You don't need a solid case! It's YOUR home that YOU pay for, therfore you decides who comes and goes.

Change the locks immediately, the LL has already proved they cannot be trusted in any way.