Landlord has given us 2 months notice to leave

Incyder

I can't help but wonder about the new owners.
They have done nothing wrong but may be in a chain where they go ahead and complete and then can't move into this house. Hardly fair on them is it. I'd say 60 days is plenty. Get yourself sorted and out unless you want all the grief that will come your way such as court and bailiffs etc.
You may also want a good reference from your current landlord but will kiss that goodbye if you squat there.

paul1964_2

Incyder wrote: »

I can't help but wonder about the new owners.
They have done nothing wrong but may be in a chain where they go ahead and complete and then can't move into this house. Hardly fair on them is it.

I'm sure the LL has told them there is a tenant in the property. Their solicitor would advise them of the possible implications of this.

If they still went ahead with the exchange before the property became vacant, I guess it is a risk they were happy to take.

BitterAndTwisted

It won't be squatting! The landlord needs to evict them legally like every other landlord has to if they want them to leave and the tenants are unwilling or unable to. These buyers and/or the landlord could be encouraged to come up with a financial inducement to compensate for the tenants' inconvenience if they don't want to go through the lengthy, time-consuming and expensive legal-eviction process.

neas

paul1964 wrote: »

If we are going to consider morality, I would say that S21 notices are themselves immoral. They give LLs the right to begin to evict a "faultless" tenant from their own home with virtually no notice.

I am sure there are many people who would disagree with me, so morality aside, I would suggest the OP uses the law to do what is best for her and her children. If this means staying in her home for as long as the law allows and this upsets the LL and his plans, then tough.

After all, the LL doesn't seem to have a moral problem with evicting a mother with a 3 week old baby.

Sorry but what a load of tosh. i rented for 3 years, and had 4-5 different rentals during that period. From the get go i understood the following:

1. I was temporarily there, it was not my permanent home.
2. I could give 1 month notice to leave (which i did alot as you can see) and as i can do this its fair that they can give me two month notice.
3. I would be an adult and budget incase i needed to move suddenly.

That is the nature of renting a house... you sacrifice home certainty and increased stress for the ability to jump houses alot easier than those who own.

My point about moral and immoral. When the tenant signed the contract they agreed these things.. they've been there for longer than most people would rent a place out and have been getting a discount. Basically the tenant agreed at the start that 2 month notice was sufficient.. now they are seeking to find ways around that to extend it to 4-5 months notice. Aka IMMORAL. Regardless they being turfed out that is what they agreed to as an adult to adult decision.

There are many points to take from this:

1. If they wanted security should they not have done what the rest of us do and put on hold our families to save deposit for their own place?
2. They've had 2 month notice and thats what was agreed at the start. landlord albeit has given it incorrectly has tried to do the correct thing.
3. They've had reduced rent, and time to arrange these things, unfortunately circumstances changed and one of them was made redundant... but they have been on waiting list 3.5 years for a council house (long time redundant or planning to rely on council??)
4. The course of action chose, and as i stated would be advised is the immoral one.. legal yes but immoral nonetheless. Moreso than the landlord.
5. This is the most important one... because of tenants inability to budget, and plan in their life a buyer will now have to wait some 4-5 months to actually get their new house. IMMORAL.

There goes the lesson on Morality and making adult decisions in life also with a pinch of 'not relying on others' for 3.5 years...

BitterAndTwisted

Oh, please leave your moral indignation at the door. Thanks.

pstuart

We have some relatives in a very similar situation.

It would appear that a lot of people are sticking their heads in the sand about home ownership, mostly, if you don't own now, when will you?

The current system of low LHA and secure tenancies etc. will change if Eric Pickles gets his way (we are all in this together), making it more expensive and less secure to rent (both social and private).

Our relatives realise this and are looking forward to the Section 21 Notice end date and presenting themselves to council ( they have already 'signed up') as homeless - nowherelse to to live, not with relatives, friends, caravan etc..

Unfortunate as this is, Social Housing and all that it entails, is the only way to get a secure tenanacy (currently) and affordable rents.

Once you have one you are not stuck and can generally get a transfer at a later date.

Get your breath back for a year or so and see then if you need to buy or have a change of neighbours.

paul1964_2

neas wrote: »

Sorry but what a load of tosh.

.... Snip sermon ....

OK. You are happy with the morals of the eviction of a mother and 3 week old baby, but can't bear the thought of a buyer having to wait a bit (because they hadn't done their homework) and get all indignant on hearing a poor LL might have to wait for his money (for exactly the same reason).

That's fair enough - to me it sounds a little odd, but I accept that morals are a subjective, personal thing.

So we are left with the law. A S21 notice is only the first step a LL needs to take to gain possession of a property. If a tenant vacates at this point, it is done so voluntarily. Why should a tenant waive their legal rights in order to make things easier for a LL to evict them? Surely the LL should have looked into such things before setting up the business and made contingency on their business plan.

Geenie

neas wrote: »

Sorry but what a load of tosh. i rented for 3 years, and had 4-5 different rentals during that period. From the get go i understood the following:

1. I was temporarily there, it was not my permanent home.
2. I could give 1 month notice to leave (which i did alot as you can see) and as i can do this its fair that they can give me two month notice.
3. I would be an adult and budget incase i needed to move suddenly.

That is the nature of renting a house... you sacrifice home certainty and increased stress for the ability to jump houses alot easier than those who own.

My point about moral and immoral. When the tenant signed the contract they agreed these things.. they've been there for longer than most people would rent a place out and have been getting a discount. Basically the tenant agreed at the start that 2 month notice was sufficient.. now they are seeking to find ways around that to extend it to 4-5 months notice. Aka IMMORAL. Regardless they being turfed out that is what they agreed to as an adult to adult decision.

There are many points to take from this:

1. If they wanted security should they not have done what the rest of us do and put on hold our families to save deposit for their own place?
2. They've had 2 month notice and thats what was agreed at the start. landlord albeit has given it incorrectly has tried to do the correct thing.
3. They've had reduced rent, and time to arrange these things, unfortunately circumstances changed and one of them was made redundant... but they have been on waiting list 3.5 years for a council house (long time redundant or planning to rely on council??)
4. The course of action chose, and as i stated would be advised is the immoral one.. legal yes but immoral nonetheless. Moreso than the landlord.
5. This is the most important one... because of tenants inability to budget, and plan in their life a buyer will now have to wait some 4-5 months to actually get their new house. IMMORAL.

There goes the lesson on Morality and making adult decisions in life also with a pinch of 'not relying on others' for 3.5 years...

I agree with Neas on many points. The property is owned by the LL and they have a right to claim it back through the correct procedure, ie issuing a section 21.

No amount of delaying tactics will make a difference to the fact the tenants will have to leave at some stage.

It has been up for sale so the tenants must have been aware that it could be sold at any time and they would have to eventually leave.

Though I wouldn't want to evict a tenant in such a condition, at the end of the day, the tenants family planning is down to them, and is not the responsibility of the LL to manage.

The property was cheap because of no central heating, but the tenants were prepared to take it on in this state. The deposit has been protected, so the LL is not total scum as declared on here by some.
They have given what they think is the correct 2 months notice, not the 1 month that comes up on so many threads here with LL's and LA's, and the OP has not said they have been particulaly bad LL's over the last 2 years.
The fact the tenant must have allowed viewings for the sale to go ahead must mean there has been an amicable relationship between the 2 parties.

As to references, I always ask for them from previous LL's and also get asked for them when tenants have moved elsewhere.

All of this said, I do know that tenants often have to go through the eviction process in order to get rehoused, so I can see why this advice is being offered. They need to get a correct eviction notice for this to stand a chance of happening. Delaying this knowledge with the LL may be one tactic, but it will not get you rehoused and settled quicker, and delaying might mean that any available property which is suitable has gone when you do need it.

I would advise the OP to weigh everything up carefully, see if there is an option to discuss witht the LL the predicament with a baby coming soon, talk to CAB etc, and do what is right for you and the family to get a new home with fairness to all if possible.

I truly wish you all the best OP, and hope something gets sorted out sooner rather then later, as the timing of this is not great.

kier333

I personally think some of the replies on this post are Disgusting, You have rented the property for two years, in that time i assume you have had a good relationship with your LL, they have done everything correct ie given you TWO MONTHS NOTICE and still you are being advised to find ways to over stay because the Section 21 issued is not valid due to not having "SECTION 21" wrote on it. So what if you have children and another on the way, LL cannot be held responsible for you getting pregnant, secondly so what if rentals are higher in the area, be grateful you got it cheap for the past two years. I personally HOPE that if you end up staying past the two Months and go to Court the Judge will see it that way also. I really angers me when people are looking for any excuse to be difficult, I think the LL has been fair and if he has sold the property then good for him, end of the day, one would assume you know it was For Sale and ultimately this day would come. If your really that unhappy then Buy your own property, failing that wait for a Council property and in the mean time pay rent to a LL.

Remember what goes around comes around and i for one would not want to tempt fate. Any decent Human being would accept it for what it was and do the right thing ie MOVE OUT as notified!

Turnbull2000

Sorry if this sounds mean, but is it really appropriate that the OP is privately renting whilst bringing up children?

Do you have any friends or family who can assist you with a deposit for buying?