Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

jamie11

silvercar wrote: »

Like here?

Noooooo! I was thinking more along the lines of
www.iwillagreewithanythingyousay.com

Don't bother clicking on it, it's spoof.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

As already said several times in this very thread, a notice to quit by the tenant unilaterally ends the tenancy.

Only if the tenant actually quits. If they don't then, for all intents and purposes, the tenancy continues and the LL will need to employ the exact same methods to regain possession as he would if notice was not served by the tenant.

jjlandlord wrote: »

The landlord cannot "refuse" the tenant's notice.

Please see my previous posts: #40 and #43.

Agreed already.......

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Technically, the LLs agreement to accept notice is part of a tenancy.

Not sure why you are arguing a point you agree with.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Not sure why you are arguing a point you agree with.

Because:

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Only if the tenant actually quits. If they don't then, for all intents and purposes, the tenancy continues.

No it does not, see posts #40 and #43.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

and the LL will need to employ the exact same methods to regain possession as he would if notice was not served by the tenant.

No exactly as with the tenancy ended the landlord does not need to serve a s.21 notice to the tenant before seeking a possession order. Basically if the day after the tenancy has ended the tenant has not vacated the landlord may immediately start court proceedings.

See posts #40 and #43...

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Because:



No it does not, see posts #40 and #43.



No exactly as with the tenancy ended the landlord does not need to serve a s.21 notice to the tenant before seeking a possession order. Basically if the day after the tenancy has ended the tenant has not vacated the landlord may immediately start court proceedings.

See posts #40 and #43...

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

The tenancy will only end by MUTUAL agreement or a court order. If the tenant stays after their notice period (notice being only a notification of INTENT), then there is no MUTUAL agreement.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The tenancy will only end by MUTUAL agreement or a court order. If the tenant stays after their notice period (notice being only a notification of INTENT), then there is no MUTUAL agreement.

This is incorrect and I'm afraid to say that your reference is not convincing.
Again, what you say is only valid when then the notice (i.e. section 21 or section 8) is served by the landlord, not when it is served by the tenant, in which case it is an actual notice to quit.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is incorrect and I'm afraid to say that your reference is not convincing.
Again, what you say is only valid when then the notice (i.e. section 21 or section 8) is served by the landlord, not when it is served by the tenant, in which case it is an actual notice to quit.

Well, perhaps you would like to educate me and tell me under what legislation you would suggest the LL seeks possession?

jjlandlord

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?

Obviously if the tenancy has ended the 'tenant' has no longer any right to possession of the property and the landlord can seek possession in this ground.

On NTQs. e.g. see this:
http://www.housinglaw.org.uk/NTQ.htm
With the limitation that the Housing Act 1988 prevents the landlord from serving a NTQ in assured (shorthold) tenancies. Meaning that the tenant's notice still is an actual notice to quit.

And drop the patronising tone if you want others to help you...

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Obviously if the tenancy has ended the 'tenant' has no longer any right to possession of the property and the landlord can seek possession in this ground.

On NTQs. e.g. see this:
http://www.housinglaw.org.uk/NTQ.htm
With the limitation that the Housing Act 1988 prevents the landlord from serving a NTQ in assured (shorthold) tenancies. Meaning that the tenant's notice still is an actual notice to quit.

And drop the patronising tone if you want others to help you...

I'm not sure your "help" on this matter is worth having. It was, after all, quite a simple question..... I'll give you another go....

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?

Ulfar

So basically the right and moral thing would be for the OP to put their stuff in storage and stay in a hotel until they can move into their new house.

They are at fault for pre-emptively acting upon bad information from their builder. The LL and the new tenant are the innocent parties in this. The OP should seek redress from the builder, but I suspect will get nowhere as I bet the contract has lots of get out clauses for delays.

Any other attempts at justification by the OP over what the LL has or has not done correctly are completely irrelevant.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It was, after all, quite a simple question...

Indeed, hence my simple answer.
I am sure that with your immense knowledge you know full well what are called people occupying land/property without the owner's consent, how to evict them, and all the statutes related to such cases.
If you don't, well you can use your keyboard and look that up for yourself as I certainly won't help further.