A confusing one - please help!

holly_hobby

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

they don' t become squatters at all, in any sense of the word. A s.21 notice is an intention to seek possession of a property, that's all.

Oh ... I see ...

I am confused ... (no doesn't take much !), as I thought that if an individual occupied a premisis that they either do not have the owners permission or the legal right to do so (i.e in the event that the tenancy agreement has expired, and they had been given and ignored notice to vacate), they were termed as "squatters", as being classed as an unlawful resident. With court intervention reqd if they do no vacate of their own volition (as discussed in my earlier post).


I apologise NDG if that isn't the correct term, and also to all, if my "squatter" has confused anyone .


I'm intrigued now NDG, when do you earn the right to be called a squatter, how do you qualify - is it only if you intend to occupy under Adverse Possession and/or can't prove there has ever been an agreement in place?

Thanks in advance

Holly

neverdespairgirl

A tenant signs an AST. That is not a fixed-term contract, it is an on-going contract with an initial fixed term. That's usually 6 or 12 months. So for the first 6 or 12 months, whatever that fixed term is, neither side can get out of it (assuming rent is being paid, etc).

After the expiry of the fixed term, the tenancy automatically becomes a periodic tenancy, under which a LL can give two months' notice ending on a rent day, and a tenant 1 month's notice.

A s.21 notice is not an order to leave. It's a notice that the landlord intends to seek possession of the property. If the tenants don't accept the notice and leave in accordance with it, they remain as tenants, with the legal rights of peaceful occupation, quiet enjoyment etc, and a continuing obligation to pay the rent, unless and until a court evicts them.

A squatter is someone who doesn't have a right to occupy.

holly_hobby

I still don't understand (sorry if I'm being thick !) ...

If the landlord has sought possession and the tenant doesn't vacate in accordance with the notice to vacate, then how can they still be termed as tenants with a right of occupancy - as the landlord has revoked their authority to reside in the prems, and the individuals are therefore continuing to reside there without a valid contract or the owners consent.

Or is it only when it gets to court and the presiding Judge orders their vacation, are they termed as not having a lawful right of occupancy, regardless of the fact that the LL has previously ordered their leave.

Am I being dim (don't say yes too loud !!) .. it is late and I've just had a large vino .. :j

Holly x

PS - sorry to OP for temporarily hijacking your thread .. !!

Yorkie1

What you are terming 'a notice to vacate' is not actually a notice to vacate or a LL's order to leave.

It is merely a notice under s.21 which tells the T of the LL's possible future intentions - namely that the LL may, if s/he so chooses, later go to court to ask for a notice of possession. Many LLs serve one near the start of the tenancy to preserve their position and to allow them to go to court quickly when the tenancy expires.

Many Ts choose to leave at the expiry of a s.21 notice but there is no legal obligation to do so. They have the legal right to stay in the property under the terms of the tenancy unless and until either they choose to leave or the court orders them to do so.

Edit: the broad difference from a squatter is that they never had a tenancy, but have entered without the owner's permission / knowledge from the outset.

holly_hobby

Ah ... I see .... I'll make sure I never bandy round the term squatter willy nilly again !! :eek:

With orig post making ref to the S word duly amended

Thanks NDG & Yorkie ....

Holly

neverdespairgirl

A s.21 notice isn't a notice to vacate, and it doesn't end the right of occupation. The LL can't rely on it to reclaim the property without a court order. If he tries to do so, it's a criminal offence.

ghaffa11

My advice would be:
- Pay YBS the application to get the cheaper product (it is more than compensated by the interest savings).
- If YBS refuse to extend the date, ask the vendor to pay for the re-valuation (assuming they gave you the wrong date, hence it is there fault you are in this mess).

Annisele

Also - the tenants may have the legal right to stay until X date*, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's no room for negotiation.

If I was a T and my LL said "I know you have the right to stay here until 27 Sep, but I'll give you £2k if you leave on 14 Sep instead" I'd more than likely trundle off early.

Plus, has anybody actually spoken to the Ts? If I were in their position, I'd be happy with an agreement that just said "leave as soon as you can, and you'll only have to pay a proportional rent up until the date you leave - you don't have to pay up until 27 Sep".

*Edit: Actually, as others have said, they have the legal right to stay until a court kicks them out - but I think my point stands

Thrugelmir

ghaffa11 wrote: »

hence it is there fault you are in this mess).

Not entirely. As the OP has exchanged contracts on an occupied property. The price has been contractually fixed. What if the new valuation is lower? This will reduce the mortgage advance. Meaning the OP will need to fund the shortfall.

If I was the lender in this situation I wouldn't extend the offer at the current time.

Chin

Guess it all depends if they insist on a new valuation.
The property is central London where the Market seems to be doing 'alright'.

But who knows. We're at so many other people's mercy right now!