Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

And me who had hoped that post #81 would have shown you that the notice to quit ends the tenancy...



You never provided arguments. You just provided your opinion, without supporting references, that the NTQ does end the tenancy.

Quite the contrary. I have stated that the tenants NOTICE does NOT end the tenancy. Only the tenants ACTIONS will do that. If a LL should not wish to rely on the tenants stated INTENTIONS, they should serve a S21.

Seems clear enough to me. Which bit are you struggling with?

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I have [STRIKE]stated[/STRIKE]claimed that the tenants NOTICE does NOT end the tenancy.

Fixed that for you.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Seems clear enough to me.

If you wish to disregard the references to the contrary, that's your choice.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Fixed that for you.



If you wish to disregard the references to the contrary, that's your choice.

Still waiting....... patiently......

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, perhaps you would like to educate me and tell me under what legislation you would suggest the LL seeks possession?

G_M

Look guys - take the discussion offline (PM each other?) and when you reach agreement (:rotfl:) come back and tell us the answer.

The OP has moved on - probobly doesn't care one way or the other as she's gonna do what she's gonna do whatever the legal and/or moral rights or wrongs.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

Look guys - take the discussion offline (PM each other?) and when you reach agreement (:rotfl:) come back and tell us the answer.

On the contrary.
This is a public forum and I think that it does not serve the community to let erroneous claims unchallenged as some may then think that they are correct.

G_M, I would have thought that you could contribute more positively here

nikki_angel

I agree with what you are saying but you are both going round in circles. It's confusing for anyone to follow.

DVardysShadow

As I see it, if a Landlord gives notice, the notice is a dead period during which eviction/possession proceedings cannot be commenced. It seems to me reasonable that this protection should also apply during the notice period when Tenant has given notice. It seems to me logical that once notice has expired, proceedings can be started by the LL, regardless of who gave notice.

It also seems to me that a Tenant has 2 protections

• no proceedings during the notice period
• protection from eviction without a court hearing and order

Thus once the tenant outstays his notice, only the second protection remains, because the notice has run its term.

What I am struggling to get my head around is why a Landlord should not be able to initiate proceedings once the Tenant outstays his own notice. If the Landlord initiates proceedings after his own notice has expired, we still regard the Tenant as a Tenant.

I don't think there is mileage in debating over whether or not the Tenant remains a Tenant after his own notice expires. What is important is whether and why the Tenant is or is not protected from proceedings once his own notice has expired.

My view is that he probably loses that protection, but retains the protection of no eviction without a court order. I am open to be convinced otherwise.

Wee_Willy_Harris

G_M wrote: »

Look guys - take the discussion offline (PM each other?) and when you reach agreement (:rotfl:) come back and tell us the answer.

The OP has moved on - probobly doesn't care one way or the other as she's gonna do what she's gonna do whatever the legal and/or moral rights or wrongs.

I'll accept that the OP has long gone (probably lost interest when the rational world decided not to agree with them). However, the outcome may be of interest to other LLs and Ts. As jjlandlord seems determined to give poor, inaccurate advice/information, I feel that this inaccuracy should be highlighted in case any misguided LL's were to waste time and money on court action under the guise of the poor advice and ignorance of jjlandlord.

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

Look guys - take the discussion offline (PM each other?) and when you reach agreement (:rotfl:) come back and tell us the answer.

The OP has moved on - probobly doesn't care one way or the other as she's gonna do what she's gonna do whatever the legal and/or moral rights or wrongs.

Actually, I am interested in the outcome, so I want it public rather than PM. Yes, we have probably made it too hot for the OP, but I think we could learn something here.

Where is tbs64 when you need her?

G_M

I have no problem with posters correcting each others' errors (I welcome correction myself) or debating relevant issues but as nikkiangel says

but you are both going round in circles. It's confusing for anyone to follow.

Me? I don't know the answer!