Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

Hardly deviation when the keys being returned was the ONLY example given in your link.

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

Are you for real? Case law on eviction is hardly thin on the ground and appeals are very commonplace.

Wee_Willy_Harris

silvercar wrote: »

Wish you two could agree on something.

jj is confusing the rental liability as a result of the LL actions with the rental liability as a result of the T actions. It's simple stuff, really, but some do seem to struggle with it.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Hardly deviation when the keys being returned was the ONLY example given in your link.

Clearly you cannot read.

silvercar wrote: »

Wish you two could agree on something.

That that notice by tenant in an AST is a notice to quit and that therefore it ends the tenancy is the reply you will from anyone dealing with tenancies on this forum and others.
I have provided external references to further this point, including summary of court decisions, advice page from Shelter, and other websites.
Idem re. mesne profits.

This is key, as once the tenancy has ended, the tenant has obviously no right to remain.

Silvercar, I am afraid that WWH will not admit that and only use insults as arguments. I do not care and just note that he could not provide a single element to support in claim.
But I did argue with him and provided the references I could so as to allow other readers not to take his opinion for a fact.

I would suggest readers having problems or questions regarding this area to also ask them over on LandlordZone where the density of knowledgeable people (inc. solicitors) is higher than here.

may_fair

jjlandlord is correct. A T's notice to quit does end the tenancy at notice expiry. It's not a notice of an 'intention to surrender' as has been suggested; (if it were, LL could reject the T's offer to surrender, as it takes two to agree a surrender).

As the T's NTQ ends the tenancy, if the T fails to vacate at notice expiry then the LL may treat the ex-T as a trespasser and apply for possession. HA1988 no longer applies as there is no longer an assured tenancy; only PFEA1977 applies, requiring LL to obtain a court order for possession (see s.3(1)).

From Laine v Cadwallader:

"In the present case the judge...seems to have overlooked the tenant's obligation to serve notice to quit if he wishes unilaterally to determine a periodic tenancy, an obligation which is not ousted by any statutory provision in the Housing Act 1988."

And Shelter aren't just making it up when they say:

"If you have a periodic tenancy... 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." (already quoted by jjlandlord, but worth reiterating).

AFAIK, it's common law. If it were not the case that a T's NTQ determined the tenancy, he would be unable to unilaterally end the tenancy (and his liability for rent).

jjlandlord

Ah perhaps having several persons repeating the same thing will show reason to some.

may_fair wrote: »

From Laine v Cadwallader:

"In the present case the judge...seems to have overlooked the tenant's obligation to serve notice to quit if he wishes unilaterally to determine a periodic tenancy, an obligation which is not ousted by any statutory provision in the Housing Act 1988."

I'm going to write this reference down and keep it safely as it states the facts very simply and clearly! Thanks.

may_fair

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.

See this post from the PainSmith blog (solicitors specialist in landlord/tenant law). I quote:

"...Where a tenant has given notice to quit, either under a break clause or in relation to a periodic tenancy, that notice is binding on the tenant even if it is defective and it can only be withdrawn or rescinded with the consent of the landlord.

Where a tenant gives notice to quit and then does not in fact vacate the premises, staying for a few extra days the provisions of section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737 come into play. This section states that to discourage tenants causing “great inconveniences … by … refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same” the landlord may seek double the sum normally charged in rent.

This can only occur where the tenant has given a valid notice to quit which the landlord accepts as a valid notice and where the landlord is, therefore treating the tenant as a trespasser while they hold over. In other words it can only apply where the landlord would have a right to seek possession through the Courts but is unable to do so because the tenant will not be remaining in the property for long enough to make it a practical option. The landlord may not seek double rent for a full period of the tenancy (as this would be inconsistent with treating the tenant as a trespasser) and must charge it on a daily basis. It should also be noted that failure to return keys promptly is not sufficient to engage this principle."

may_fair

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

So you're arguing that T cannot unilaterally end his tenancy? Not without the mutual agreement of the LL? Please explain what happens if the LL doesn't agree.

The LL's agreement to notice served AND EXCERCISED by the tenant is enshrined withing the 1988 Housing Act.

Ah, so LL's 'agreement' is enshrined somewhere in HA1988 - he can't disagree? Please could you refer me to the relevant section/subsection.

jjlandlord

Careful there, may_fair! I'm not sure you want to go there with WWH

may_fair

jjlandlord wrote: »

Ah perhaps having several persons repeating the same thing will show reason to some.

I can only see one who is doggedly determined to be wrong, and who provides nothing to support his argument other than SHOUTY CAPS and misplaced condescension.

may_fair

jjlandlord wrote: »

Careful there, may_fair! I'm not sure you want to go there with WWH

Well, yes, but I'm just curious to know which bit of HA1988 WWH is talking about. May shed some light.