2 months to vacate, what are my options?

Blackpool_Saver

I would be changing the locks before you go away, and change them back before you leave, if he complains then you will know he has tried to gain access whilst you were not there.

GillsMan7

I agree with Blackpool_Saver - it's really easy to do and you're protecting your home then.

Tbh, I think the LL is cutting off his nose to spite his face in this instance. Technically, you could stay beyond the 23 November and he'd have to go to court to get you out, which would take a few months. You'd be liable for the rent for that period (and it would almost certainly be calculated in whole month portions, so if you left on 1 December you'd owe a whole month's rent), but morally I couldn't advise that you do it.

You could try negotiating - i.e. say that you'd like an extra month and offer to pay the rent up front (if possible) to protect this. Say that if the LL can agree to this then you'll be happy to help out with viewings etc (you do not have to let people in for viewings after all) and all that sort of jazz. It doesn't sound like there's much scope for negotiation, but you do have a small amount of leverage in that you currently occupy the house and can be extremely helpful to the LL in terms of helping him relet it ASAP.

westlondonbuyer

Obviously changing the locks is against the terms of your lease, but truthfully the lease is no longer your problem. The landlord changed the rules by thinking the requirements of the lease applied only to the tenants, not to himself. Yes, change the locks whilst you're away, but there's a slim chance your landlord may retaliate further upon discovering this, and whilst your home is empty. You need to think seriously about cancelling the holiday.

You get a lot of landlords like this, who react in a fit of pique and serve notice on the tenant (or worse) because they refuse to accept they're in the wrong and don't seem to understand a lease is not a one-sided document of demands but a business contract between two parties.

Often they don't even realise they're in the wrong, because they're such inexperienced landlords. They forget it's almost certain to cost them as much time and money to replace the so-called "awkward tenant" as it is to solve the problem. Or that a tenant who pays the rent bang on time and keeps the place looking immaculate is going to have high standards in other areas too, including in his expectations of the landlord.

The thing that frightens me is that there are more and more people on MSE contemplating becoming landlords because they can't sell their house - yet most of these accidental landlords will be unregulated and untaught, and don't seem to appreciate that letting property is a business (with all the time and responsibility and professionalism that requires), not simply a way of mitigating their personal financial losses.

N79

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

yet most of these accidental landlords will be unregulated...

All LLs are subject to the same regulations irrespective of their reasons for being a LL.

westlondonbuyer

You're absolutely right N79, what I should have added was that many professional landlords prefer managed lets through ARLA letting agents, (and in fact some banks insist on this), who are therefore a little more business-like (though not always!) in their dealings with tenants.

An inexperienced landlord managing a property themselves seems to be a recipe for disaster if many of the threads on MSE are to be believed. I'm not saying that accidental landlords do not make good landlords across the board, though there does seem to be a high degree of coincidence in these forums.

The sooner ALL landlords and their agents are regulated (and of couse ARLA isn't a legal entity, just a trade body), the better IMO.

N79

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

You're absolutely right N79, what I should have added was that many professional landlords prefer managed lets through ARLA letting agents, (and in fact some banks insist on this), who are therefore a little more business-like (though not always!) in their dealings with tenants.

In my experience most professional LL self manage their properties - it is much easier than dealing with agents (although many LLs will still use agents as part of the tenant find service as access to rightmove and things like glossy brochure production are expensive to set up and maintain without a large throughput of properties).

The sooner ALL landlords and their agents are regulated (and of couse ARLA isn't a legal entity, just a trade body), the better IMO.

ARLA is a legal entity. I believe it is a company limited by guarantee.

All LLs are already regulated. I assume you want some additional form of regulation? Personally, I doubt it will make much difference as any additional legal requirements will just be ignored by "bad" landlords in the same way that they ignore current regulations. It will, of course, raise rents for Ts with good LLs as compliance is always expensive.

I would suggest that instead of more regulation, effort and resources should be expended on giving local authorities the money to launch more prosecutions - most local authorities lack the budget to launch more than a handful of prosecutions per year. More regulation alone, as always, will achieve nothing.

westlondonbuyer

N79 wrote: »

In my experience most professional LL self manage their properties - it is much easier than dealing with agents.

Interesting. I'm based in London and in 15 years' of letting, and of being a tenant myself, I've only encountered two self-managing landlords. Having tried self-managing myself for a year, I know which option I'd prefer if I were to do it again:D

N79 wrote: »

ARLA is a legal entity. I believe it is a company limited by guarantee.

I'm a company too, but I don't position myself as anything else. ARLA likes to sell itself as a professional association (ie one that requires qualifications, and minimum standards of conduct, like the Law Society and the BMA). Being a self-regulated trade body, it isn't anything of the sort, as any LL or tenant who has needed to complain about an ARLA member soon discovers.

N79 wrote: »

All LLs are already regulated. I assume you want some additional form of regulation?

I do think additional regulation is required, yes. Renting is a minefield in this country - having been a tenant abroad, I returned disgusted at the way tenancies are conducted in this country.

It would also help if estate agents and letting agents were properly regulated by government - in fact this is more of a priority IMO, particularly now that fewer and fewer people are in a financial position to buy. And given that buying/renting a home is the single biggest financial transaction most people ever make.

N79 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt it will make much difference as any additional legal requirements will just be ignored by "bad" landlords in the same way that they ignore current regulations. It will, of course, raise rents for Ts with good LLs as compliance is always expensive.

I have to agree with you here. I think the solution is certainly along the lines you propose later in your post:

N79 wrote: »

I would suggest that instead of more regulation, effort and resources should be expended on giving local authorities the money to launch more prosecutions.

Yes, the possibility of more criminal convictions for rogue landlords would certainly focus the mind.

westlondonbuyer

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

If you want a secure home, then buy. If you can't, them I'm afraid insecure homes are just a fact of life for private tenants, particularly if you start asking for repairs.

And this is why regulation is required. "Insecure homes" in a developed country? !!!!!!? If you bought a car for £30k (the cost of renting a small house in London for 12 months), would it be okay for that car to be "insecure" and unfit for purpose too?

GillsMan7

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

Obviously changing the locks is against the terms of your lease, but truthfully the lease is no longer your problem. The landlord changed the rules by thinking the requirements of the lease applied only to the tenants, not to himself. Yes, change the locks whilst you're away, but there's a slim chance your landlord may retaliate further upon discovering this, and whilst your home is empty. You need to think seriously about cancelling the holiday.

I'm sorry, but this is terrible advice. Regardless of what it says in the AST, the tenant is quite within his rights to change the locks (and will be protected should it go to arbitration), provided he replaces the original locks at the end of the tenancy.

The only way the LL could enter the house then is if he broke in which is quite obviously a criminal act.

As to your other comments, the law is quite clear and strikes a sensible balance between protecting tenants and protecting landlords. If a tenant wants to stop paying rent and play the system, it is nigh on impossible to get rid of such a tenant for up to six months. Perhaps we should regulate tenants while we're at it?

Landlords operate as a business; the law provides that the basics are done. If you have a crappy LL you're entitled to leave and take your business elsewhere. If a LL is negligent, the law will back you up. Regulation? Surefire way to see rental rates increase.

Everyone who rents knows that nothing is guaranteed. You're guaranteed the term on the AST (provided rental arrears are kept in check) and that's it. I'm both a LL and a T and if that fact of renting bothers you, then perhaps you should become a westlondonbuyer instead of a westlondonrenter.

westlondonbuyer

GillsMan7 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is terrible advice. Regardless of what it says in the AST, the tenant is quite within his rights to change the locks (and will be protected should it go to arbitration), provided he replaces the original locks at the end of the tenancy.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't counsel against changing the locks. I'd do the same in the OP's shoes.

GillsMan7 wrote: »

The only way the LL could enter the house then is if he broke in which is quite obviously a criminal act.

Though a criminal prosecution would be very small consolation if the OP returned from holiday to find his home trashed, I would have thought.

GillsMan7 wrote: »

As to your other comments, the law is quite clear and strikes a sensible balance between protecting tenants and protecting landlords. If a tenant wants to stop paying rent and play the system, it is nigh on impossible to get rid of such a tenant for up to six months. Perhaps we should regulate tenants while we're at it?

I'm in the slightly curious position of having been both a landlord and a tenant for a long period of time. I hope this allows me a more balanced perspective than many who can only see it from one self-interested position.
Your consumer rights are better protected as a buyer of a toaster than as a tenant. This is not to say the law, and tenants, cannot often make life difficult for landlords. In my experience, landlord insurance, and the same caution and professionalism you'd give any other business relationship, goes a long way.

The OP's landlord seems to be an unfortunate combination of inept and arrogant, resulting in a situation where a heavily pregnant woman is about to become homeless. In this case, my sympathies are very much with the tenant.