Landlord forced me out of flat but wants full rent!?

Eton_Rifle

nikkikitch wrote: »

Unfortunately i didnt get it in writing that the flat had been sold, didnt think they'd lie about it to be honest!
x

but did you get the notice to quit in writing? The sale is irrelevant.

may_fair

may_fair wrote: »

N.B. If LL serves notice on you, you still need to serve NTQ to end the tenancy; if you don't, the tenancy will continue until the LL obtains and enforces a possession order.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Really? Has that ever been upheld in case law? Does it have a statutory basis?

'Cos it looks to me like you have the wrong end of the stick.

S.5(1) Housing Act 1988
An assured tenancy cannot be brought to an end by the landlord except by—
(a) obtaining—
(i) an order of the court for possession of the dwelling-house under section 7 or 21, and
(ii) the execution of the order,

jjlandlord

may_fair wrote: »

S.5(1) Housing Act 1988
An assured tenancy cannot be brought to an end by the landlord except by—
(a) obtaining—
(i) an order of the court for possession of the dwelling-house under section 7 or 21, and
(ii) the execution of the order,

This has been discussed many times, and I don't want to re-trigger the debate here.
What we need at this point is indeed to see court decisions on the matter as, in my view, the statute quoted above does not settle the issue (it only in effect states the landlord cannot unilaterally terminate the tenancy, he must to get a court order).

may_fair

jjlandlord wrote: »

This has been discussed many times, and I don't want to re-trigger the debate here.
What we need at this point is indeed to see court decisions on the matter as, in my view, the statute quoted above does not settle the issue (it only in effect states the landlord cannot unilaterally terminate the tenancy, he must to get a court order).

As lawcruncher has said more than once, it cannot be the case that Tenant A can assert, with the full authority of statute, that a s.21 notice doesn't end the tenancy; whereas Tenant B can assert that it does if he decides it does. If LL and T separately agree a surrender, that is of course possible, but it's nothing to do with service of a s.21; nothing in s.21 even faintly suggests that a notice pursuant to the section is a 'pre-acceptance' of a T's offer to surrender.

We may have discussed this at length, but perhaps DVardysShadow hasn't, or perhaps he/she has something new to add to the debate or knows of case law which supports his/her position.

franklee

may_fair wrote: »

As lawcruncher has said more than once, it cannot be the case that Tenant A can assert, with the full authority of statute, that a s.21 notice doesn't end the tenancy; whereas Tenant B can assert that it does if he decides it does. If LL and T separately agree a surrender, that is of course possible, but it's nothing to do with service of a s.21; nothing in s.21 even faintly suggests that a notice pursuant to the section is a 'pre-acceptance' of a T's offer to surrender.

We may have discussed this at length, but perhaps DVardysShadow hasn't, or perhaps he/she has something new to add to the debate or knows of case law which supports his/her position.

Do you have any case law where a landlord was able to claim any more rent from a tenant for having moved out on S21 notice expiry but without having served their own notice to quit? The situation is extremely common as I doubt many tenants who have a S21 serve their own notice to quit if they intend to move out on S21 notice expiry.

The comments on PainSmith's blog cover it here:
http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2010/08/23/after-a-section-21-notice-expires/

See PainSmith's replies to ontological_shocks comments. ontological_shocks seems to be arguing a similar stance to yours.

e.g.

PainSmith:
"Where a tenant moves out on the expiry of a s21 notice they are voluntarily giving up the property which ends the tenancy under s5 Housing Act 1988."

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

PainSmith:
"Where a tenant moves out on the expiry of a s21 notice they are voluntarily giving up the property which ends the tenancy under s5 Housing Act 1988."

Unfortunately, this does not convince everyone. Hence the need I think to find out whether the issue wa ever brought before a court, and if so what did the court decide.

Ulfar

Back to the OP, if they are being funny and you cannot prove that you were told to leave and agreed to surrender the tenancy, you have two options.

1, Give 1 months notice and move into your new place, yes you will have to pay rent up until the end of your tenancy on your current property.

2, Inform the LA and LL, that you are staying that you will not leave until the correct notice has been issued for 2 months to coincide with a rent day, you will be insisting on your right to quite enjoyment and will not be allowing viewings.

I am also assuming that your deposit has been protected and you have been given the statutory information, if not then your LA/LL cannot serve a s21 notice.

I would from now on communicate only in writing to both the LA/LL. Any communication I would send a copy to both.

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

Unfortunately, this does not convince everyone. Hence the need I think to find out whether the issue wa ever brought before a court, and if so what did the court decide.

Yes a court case seems to be lacking but to get it would need a landlord perverse enough to sue a tenant for having obeyed said landlord's own notice.

In the meantime Painsmith are specialist solicitors in the field of Landlord and Tenant law so IMO their comments are probably as good as it gets (it's worth reading all the comments on that blog article).