Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

jjlandlord

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.

As already mentioned, (a): they are liable for compensation up to the day they go.
This should be recorded as "mesne profit" and not rent to avoid creating a new tenancy.
Certainly landlord should refuse any payment in advance as it could also create an ambiguity re. creation of tenancy.

Best for landlord to refuse any payment until tenant actually leaves then claim the "mesne profit" for the period the tenant overstayed.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

As already mentioned, (a): they are liable for compensation up to the day they go.
This should be recorded as "mesne profit" and not rent to avoid creating a new tenancy.
Certainly landlord should refuse any payment in advance as it could also create an ambiguity re. creation of tenancy.

Best for landlord to refuse any payment until tenant actually leaves then claim the "mesne profit" for the period the tenant overstayed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

You need to understand "mesne profit" much better.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

HA 1988 only relate to assured tenancies.
Once the tenant's NTQ expires such tenancy no longer exist.
Hence HA 1988 no longer apply.
QED.

I have provided references that there is.
You have not provided references that there is not.

Indeed this is one of the effects of HA 1988 to prevent LL from serving a NTQ in an assured tenancy.
HA 1988 does not extend this restriction to the tenant, which seems reasonable as otherwise tenants should go to court every time the want to move (why would a landlord let them go if he can force them to stay and pay rent, right?)

How would a T serve a NTQ? Notice on who, to Quit what?

jjlandlord wrote: »

Insults will only get you banned.

Unless they are factually accurate.

jjlandlord

I can keep them coming, no problem:

Ending a periodic tenancy agreement

A tenant may choose to end a periodic tenancy be issuing a valid notice to quit to the landlord. Once the notice expires then the tenant’s agreement will have ended.

http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/ending-a-tenancy-agreement.htm#Ending-a-periodic-agreement

I note that one of us can provide quite a few references to support his argument while the other can only provide insults...

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

I can keep them coming, no problem:



http://www.tenancyagreementservice.co.uk/ending-a-tenancy-agreement.htm#Ending-a-periodic-agreement

I note that one of us can provide quite a few references to support his argument while the other can only provide insults...

I've been quite clear on this. My stance is, and always has been, that if a tenant remains after the end of the notice they have served, the LL (if they wish the T to leave) must follow S8 or S21 of the 1988 Housing Act, including any notice periods prescribed. Seems simple enough to me. I'm yet to see any contrary evidence, case law or legislation.

As an aside, I note that your link puts a certain weight behind the handing over of keys as an act of surrender. Something which you have previously stated to be quite a trivial action.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Why is that a good point?

Because it defines the scope of Tenant's notice.

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

Which might explain why there is no case law - the tenant is more or less on a hiding to nothing.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

As an aside, I note that your link puts a certain weight behind the handing over of keys as an act of surrender. Something which you have previously stated to be quite a trivial action.

Don't try to deviate from the topic.
I'll quote said link:"This may involve the tenant handing over the property’s keys to the landlord".
Yes it may. Or it may not. It is not the decisive action. Surrender may have occurred without the keys being returned, or the tenancy may continue with the keys having been returned.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I'm yet to see any contrary evidence, case law or legislation.

Choose to ignore all you want.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Because it defines the scope of Tenant's notice.

I would not say that WWH's unstained claims define anything. Especially considering the references to the contrary.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Which might explain why there is no case law.

I do not know whether there is any case law.
That said, I believe that county courts decisions on these issues do not create case law. NTQ law is solid enough it would seem quite rare that someone appeals, especially considering the cost.

silvercar

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.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

jjlandlord wrote: »

As already mentioned, (a): they are liable for compensation up to the day they go.
This should be recorded as "mesne profit" and not rent to avoid creating a new tenancy.
Certainly landlord should refuse any payment in advance as it could also create an ambiguity re. creation of tenancy.

Best for landlord to refuse any payment until tenant actually leaves then claim the "mesne profit" for the period the tenant overstayed.

Wish you two could agree on something.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Which might explain why there is no case law - the tenant is more or less on a hiding to nothing.

Maybe. But LLs aren't well known for passing up revenue opportunities?