Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I don't think there is mileage in debating over whether or not the Tenant remains a Tenant after his own notice expires.

On the contrary, whether there is a running (assured shorthold) tenancy or not is key:
- if there is, then landlord must serve the correct notice before starting court proceedings.
- if there is not, the tenant is trespassing and the landlord can start proceedings immediately.

There is also the rent issue as explained in previous posts.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

but retains the protection of no eviction without a court order. I am open to be convinced otherwise.

The protection from eviction always remains as clearly stated in the s.3(1) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

Ad hominem attacks say a lot...

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

The 2 events are much more closely matched than you may think. The thing to look for is the intent. If the T's INTENT is to leave, then s/he may serve 1 months notice of his/her INTENTION to do so. In much the same way that a LL may serve a S21, which is a notice of INTENTION to seek possession of the property, In both cases, if the LL takes no further action then possession won't be granted other than by mutual agreement.

At the end of the day, the property remains the LL's and the onus of action rests, as a result, with them, NOT the tenant.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

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

Me? I don't know the answer!

Come one I don't believe that you do not know about notices to quit.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

On the contrary, whether there is a running (assured shorthold) tenancy or not is key:
- if there is, then landlord must serve the correct notice before starting court proceedings.
- if there is not, the tenant is trespassing and the landlord can start proceedings immediately.

There is also the rent issue as explained in previous posts.

The protection from eviction always remains as clearly stated in the s.3(1) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Ad hominem attacks say a lot...

Same question STILL applies.

jjlandlord wrote: »

OP has served notice to her LL: Her tenancy will end when the notice expires.
Once the tenancy has ended OP will have not right to remain in occupation and the LL could seek a possession order immediately without the need to serve any further notice.

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?

Until we know the legislation under which the LL may approach the courts without further notice, I'm afraid any argument you put forward can only be treated with scepticism.

Time to put up.... or shut up.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

On the contrary, whether there is a running (assured shorthold) tenancy or not is key:
- if there is, then landlord must serve the correct notice before starting court proceedings.
- if there is not, the tenant is trespassing and the landlord can start proceedings immediately.

My feeling for this is that the Tenant remains a Tenant under common law and thus has protection from eviction without a court order, but I doubt that they remain an AST tenant. Their tenancy will not fall under any of the other statutory models and I imagine that their tenancy will be most closely defined as squatter, but exempt from statute law affecting squatters who obtain entry by breaking in.

As there is probably not a lot of case law, that is all would rather than will.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Until we know the legislation under which the LL may approach the courts without further notice, I'm afraid any argument you put forward can only be treated with scepticism.

By whom? you?

I have posted references in post #81 and how to proceed for the eviction in post #89.
If you do not agree, it is up to you to provide references to back up you claim.

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Until we know the legislation under which the LL may approach the courts without further notice, I'm afraid any argument you put forward can only be treated with scepticism.

Until we know the legislation under which the LL may NOT approach the courts without further notice, I think your argument is in the same boat.

Overall, this has the look of a moot point where we are speculating what a court might decide if ms sophia and her LL take this all the way.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

My feeling for this is that the Tenant remains a Tenant under common law and thus has protection from eviction without a court order, but I doubt that they remain an AST tenant. Their tenancy will not fall under any of the other statutory models and I imagine that their tenancy will be most closely defined as squatter, but exempt from statute law affecting squatters who obtain entry by breaking in.

1. Again, a notice to quit ends the tenancy, this is common law with specifics about expiry dates and notice duration as previously quoted. You seem to agree that the NTQ ends the AST, so how would it create another tenancy?
2. Protection from eviction without a court order does not imply the existence of a tenancy. Actually the case of a tenant staying after expiry of the NTQ is specifically addressed in PFEA 1977 as already mentioned.
3. Squatters have no tenancy, obviously.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Until we know the legislation under which the LL may NOT approach the courts without further notice, I think your argument is in the same boat.

Overall, this has the look of a moot point where we are speculating what a court might decide if ms sophia and her LL take this all the way.

The point is that there is NO legislation under which a LL can approach the court for possession without notice being served by the LL. With the best will in the world, it's always difficult to prove the negative. However, If there was, I'm sure it would have been highlighted by jjlandlord by now.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The point is that there is NO legislation under which a LL can approach the court for possession without notice being served by the LL. With the best will in the world, it's always difficult to prove the negative. However, If there was, I'm sure it would have been highlighted by jjlandlord by now.

I did: NTQ -> No tenancy -> trespass -> N130.

Important part is: NTQ -> No tenancy. This is common law.

The key is that the landlord should not accept rent after the NTQ has expired so as not to create a new tenancy. (already mentioned in post #43).

By the way the NTQ -> No tenancy in common law is also why we repeat day after day on this forum that a s.21 notice is not a notice to quite, because is does not end the tenancy.