Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

I would agree with the above. But the missing step is showing that the LL is precluded from taking action until he has served and waited out a S21.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

All those tenants, in all those years? Yet no LL has ever faced the same circs as those presented by the OP? Really? By comparison, the TDPS legislation has been in place for only 4 years, yet that has been fully tested in the higher courts.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I would agree with the above. But the missing step is showing that the LL is precluded from taking action until he has served and waited out a S21.

As JJ has pointed out, action is available to the LL. But that doesn't stretch to instant court action to secure possession.

jjlandlord

Quoting a post by may_fair/Westminster on LLZ (where there are more experts than here..."

Swarb's nutshell version of Crate -v- Miller [1947] 1 KB 946:
"A weekly tenancy which begins on Saturday may be determined validly by notice to quit either on Friday or Saturday. Both are equally intimations that tenant is to quit when the current period ends."

I found, in Sourcebook on Land Law, S.H. Goo, 2002: "A notice [served by T] to terminate a periodic tenancy can be given to take effect either on the last day of the term or the anniversary of its commencement date, in either case the tenancy would end on the last day of the term".
For this, it cites, as well as Crate v Miller, Sidebotham v Holland (1895] 1QB 378.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?40507-tennant-s-notice-to-quit-question...&p=324903#post324903

So, with this yet-another reference, plus the one quote from Shelter:

Notice
If you have a periodic tenancy (which means that the original fixed-term has ended and your tenancy runs from week to week or month to month), you have to give one month's notice in writing, or longer if you pay your rent less often. The notice should end on the first or last day of the period of a tenancy. Once the notice ends, your tenancy ends and you no longer have any right to live in your home.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/assured_shorthold_tenancies#2

Why wouldn't a tenant be able to serve an NTQ and why wouldn't that end the tenancy?
(Please reply only if you have some knowledge and can quote references)

Some very thick skulls here today

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

All those tenants, in all those years? Yet no LL has ever faced the same circs as those presented by the OP? Really? By comparison, the TDPS legislation has been in place for only 4 years, yet that has been fully tested in the higher courts.

You are missing 'and taking it to court'. With deposit abuse, motivated, level headed, decent tenants will take it on. But the current case requires a chancer of a tenant, who may be more easily dealt with?

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Quoting a post by may_fair/Westminster on LLZ (where there are more experts than here..."



http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?40507-tennant-s-notice-to-quit-question...&p=324903#post324903

So, with this yet-another reference, plus the one quote from Shelter:



http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/assured_shorthold_tenancies#2

Why wouldn't a tenant be able to serve an NTQ and why wouldn't that end the tenancy?
(Please reply only if you have some knowledge and can quote references)

Some very thick skulls here today

Crate v Miller is irrelevant in this instance. It merely establishes tenancy terms for weekly tenancies.

My references (already stated) are the 1988 Housing Act. I am yet to see any references form YOU as to the grounds/legislation under which a LL can approach the courts without further notice following the expiry of a tenants notice of their intention to surrender the tenancy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are missing 'and taking it to court'. With deposit abuse, motivated, level headed, decent tenants will take it on. But the current case requires a chancer of a tenant, who may be more easily dealt with?

Agreed. But my point is that the relatively new TDPS legislation has been thoroughly tested. The assumption made by jjlandlord is that much older legislation hasn't been tested in the same way.

silvercar

If the tenant stays beyond the date they have given notice to be the end of their tenancy, do they have to pay rent (whether you call it "rent" or c"compensation" or whatever)?

Assuming they do, do they have to pay rent:
(a)up to the day they actually go
(b) the end of the rent period in which they leave
(c) they are required to give at least a month's notice again and pay rent to comply with that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

silvercar wrote: »

If the tenant stays beyond the date they have given notice to be the end of their tenancy, do they have to pay rent (whether you call it "rent" or c"compensation" or whatever)?

Assuming they do, do they have to pay rent:
(a)up to the day they actually go
(b) the end of the rent period in which they leave
(c) they are required to give at least a month's notice again and pay rent to comply with that.

(b) or (c) depending on the LLs attitude to any surrender. As a general rule, full rental periods will be due.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Crate v Miller is irrelevant in this instance. It merely establishes tenancy terms for weekly tenancies.

No. It is the basis for valid expiry dates on NTQ served by tenants, the period of the tenancy is anecdotal.

You seem to ignore the other references... Selective blindness?

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

My references (already stated) are the 1988 Housing Act.

HA 1988 does not mention anything related to your claim. I'd be happy if you pointed me to the exact section, though.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I am yet to see any references form YOU as to the grounds/legislation under which a LL can approach the courts without further notice following the expiry of a tenants notice of their intention to surrender the tenancy.

Obviously since there is no such thing as "tenants notice of their intention to surrender the tenancy".
For a NTQ I already replied.