2 months to vacate, what are my options?

GillsMan7

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

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

True, but advising someone to cancel their holiday in case the LL trashes his home is terrible advice IMO. Yes, the LL has been a tad harsh in handing a Section 21 notice over, but to extrapolate from that that there's a chance the LL is going to go over and trash his home (which the LL owns remember) is nonsense I'm afraid. Yes, there's a risk that the LL might try to enter the house while it's empty to carry out viewings or whatever, but any more than that? Only the most derranged would do such an act, and there's no indication from the OP that the LL is derranged. Hence why your advice was wrong IMO.

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

Your consumer rights are better protected as a buyer of a toaster than as a tenant.

Utter nonsense I'm afraid. Your rights are "protected" by legislation in exactly the same ways that, as a vendor of small electrical items, you are protected by consumer law. If a LL illegally evicts a Tenant, he can face an unlimited fine and prison time. You can Google for times when this has been done. Tenants are well protected. No, they're not protected from LLs issuing Section 21s, but that's entirely sensible.

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

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.

My sympathies are with the T too to a degree, but the LL is within his rights, and rightly so. He doesn't have to provide a reason with the S21 (indeed, he hasn't). However, the T knew that there was always a chance, whatever the reason that the LL might want the house back.

I'm a T in a beautiful house, and I'll be gutted if/when she wants possession of the house to sell. I could see my daughter growing up in this house. But as I'm renting, I know that if the LL wants me out that's her perogative. It's about being realistic & pragmatic about these things.

westlondonbuyer

GillsMan7 wrote: »

Yes, the LL has been a tad harsh in handing a Section 21 notice over, but to extrapolate from that that there's a chance the LL is going to go over and trash his home (which the LL owns remember) is nonsense I'm afraid. Yes, there's a risk that the LL might try to enter the house while it's empty to carry out viewings or whatever, but any more than that? Only the most derranged would do such an act, and there's no indication from the OP that the LL is derranged. Hence why your advice was wrong IMO.

In all likelihood you're right - which is, of course, why I said there was only a slim chance in my earlier post that he'd do such a thing.

But the simple fact that this guy is prepared to make a heavily pregnant woman homeless just because she's had the temerity to ask for her legal rights to be respected also shows he's a real piece of work.

Cancelling a holiday is a real downer, but not so much of a downer as coming back and finding a stranger has been rifling through your home, or worse.

GillsMan7 wrote: »

Utter nonsense I'm afraid. Your rights are "protected" by legislation in exactly the same ways that, as a vendor of small electrical items, you are protected by consumer law.

Legislation very clearly favours the tenant in this case: she was well within her rights to expect both white goods repaired promptly (because of course she's paid in advance for them), and for her right to quiet enjoyment respected.

Yet she's the one who's homeless, and for no better reason than because her landlord feels peeved, despite being very clearly at fault.

If a shop took your money in advance, didn't give you what you'd paid for, and then told you to sling your hook when you dared complain, you'd get on the phone to your credit card company and get your refund the same day. You could also purse the shop through trading standards to ensure no-one else was treated in the same way.

In this case, a heavily pregnant woman is about to be made homeless, and has absolutely no redress.

GillsMan7 wrote: »

If a LL illegally evicts a Tenant, he can face an unlimited fine and prison time. You can Google for times when this has been done. Tenants are well protected. No, they're not protected from LLs issuing Section 21s, but that's entirely sensible.

The landlord has, of course, acted completely illegally in failing to provide appropriate notice - it's just lucky for him that his illegal act has coincided with the timing of the break clause in the tenancy.

And I don't think it's "sensible" that a landlord should be allowed to make anyone homeless just because his nose has been put out of joint. If we had a tribunal system such as they have in Germany, we wouldn't have these sorts of unjust - in fact, inhumane - situations arising.

Blackpool_Saver

Well we can argue until the cows come home, this landlord cannot be trusted morally, so change the locks or stay at home.

MobileSaver

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

In this case, a heavily pregnant woman is about to be made homeless, and has absolutely no redress.

At no point did the OP say his wife was "heavily pregnant" or that they would be made homeless; emotive made-up statements are usually used by those with a very weak argument and/or an axe to grind.

The woman agreed 6 months ago that the landlord could now give two months notice so it's absolutely right that there should be no redress.

westlondonbuyer

You don't tell people you're pregnant until you're at 12 weeks. In two months time, when she comes to vacate, she'll be five months gone. That's heavily pregnant - and she may well be further along than that. That's not an emotive statement, and your objections to it suggest it may be you that has an axe to grind.

Did the OP's wife agree the landlord could appear without notice just because it suited him to do so, and then make her homeless because she dared to object? The LL here is a shyster, and that's plain for anyone to see.

MobileSaver

What nonsense, with many women you can barely tell they are pregnant at five months.

I refer you to my previous post; "heavily pregnant" was your claim and complete speculation on your part, not backed up by the facts presented by the OP. The OP talks about going abroad next month, not something doctors generally recommend for someone "heavily pregnant".

You failed to address the other claim that she would be "homeless"; the OP specifically talked about their "next property", doesn't sound like anyone will be homeless to me.

The landlord shows up to replace a freezer as he'd previously promised he would and he's been criticised for it! You couldn't make it up. The LL says he did give a week's notice. Anyone who says it is impossible for an email to have gone missing clearly doesn't understand how emails and spam filters work.

Did the OP's wife agree the landlord could appear without notice just because it suited him to do so, and then make her homeless because she dared to object?

Yes, the OP's wife asked the landlord to appear, he says he did give notice and she did agree he could given them two month's notice to leave without giving any reason. She's not being made homeless.

For all those reasons the OP and his wife quite rightly have no redress.

And for what it is worth I have never been either a Tenant or a Landlord so no axe to grind here.

westlondonbuyer

MobileSaver wrote: »

And for what it is worth I have never been either a Tenant or a Landlord so no axe to grind here.

Yes, quite.

neverdespairgirl

ikkare wrote: »

Hi All and thanks for all your replies.
Here is the additional information requested:
- England and Wales
- Deposit is protected in a scheme
- fixed term 12 months contract, with option for LL and tenant to end it after 6 months (giving 2-month notice). Expires 23 March 2011
- rent due 23rd of each month
- notice was delivered in letter box by agent 22th sept (but LL sent email on 20th sept that he wishes to end the contract)
- s.21 expires 23rd November
- Unfortunately the trip can't be cancelled

What does the break clause actually say in the contract?

Mrs_pbradley936

The landlord has been given the impression that the tenant is "awkward" I would guess that he will have no trouble re-letting and has decided that he would rather have a less awkward tenant.

It happens all the time whether with homes or horses. I was selling a horse once and one of the would be buyers pointed out that they were a solicitor and woe betide if there were any problems. I refused to sell to them because they were trouble before they had even negotiated, plus I had people queuing up for the horse. Why would I bother with a trouble maker when there was no need? I think this is a similar thing. The landlord is within his rights.