Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

Oh dear. This really is simple stuff. The INTENTION isn't the same as the ACT. A tenant can only end a tenancy my MUTUAL agreement. The LL's agreement to notice served AND EXCERCISED by the tenant is enshrined withing the 1988 Housing Act. The Tenants agreement is not. So, should the tenant decide not to ACT upon the notice they have served, the tenancy is NOT surrendered.

DVardysShadow

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.

But your difficulty is establishing which of the following applies:

• Everything which is not permitted is prohibited
• Everything which is not prohibited is permitted

Once T's notice has expired, I am inclined to think that the Tenant is no longer an AST tenant, although remaining a tenant in common law. So prohibitions in the enabling legislation for AST's may not apply.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

A tenant cannot serve an NTQ. They can only serve a notice intending to surrender. The key words are "intending" and "surrender".

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But your difficulty is establishing which of the following applies:

• Everything which is not permitted is prohibited
• Everything which is not prohibited is permitted

Once T's notice has expired, I am inclined to think that the Tenant is no longer an AST tenant, although remaining a tenant in common law. So prohibitions in the enabling legislation for AST's may not apply.

And yet in the 30 odd years since the 88 act, and the 40 odd years since the 77 Act, there is NO case law to support your position. Do you not wonder why?

The_Palmist

I am lost, can someone and just one person just some up a simple conclusion.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A tenant cannot serve an NTQ. They can only serve a notice intending to surrender.

Ah at least this claim seems straightforward enough for you to point us to a reference.
Please just one reference!

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A tenant cannot serve an NTQ. They can only serve a notice intending to surrender. The key words are "intending" and "surrender".

Good point. But this might not do the tenant much good if he fails to surrender. Presumably he has to issue notice again, which makes him liable for at least 2 more rental periods? On the same basis that any act by a LL which contradicts the S21 - eg offering to renew will invalidate the S21 - by staying the tenant has invalidated his own notice.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Good point.

Why is that a good point?

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And yet in the 30 odd years since the 88 act, and the 40 odd years since the 77 Act, there is NO case law to support your position. Do you not wonder why?

I don't have a strong position on this. But obviously, there will be no case law if no-one has a case in point and decides to take it to court. You come across as a little weak on arguing on negatives.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Good point. But this might not do the tenant much good if he fails to surrender. Presumably he has to issue notice again, which makes him liable for at least 2 more rental periods? On the same basis that any act by a LL which contradicts the S21 - eg offering to renew will invalidate the S21 - by staying the tenant has invalidated his own notice.

A fair argument, I would say.