Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

DVardysShadow

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.

Perhaps the initial statement is wrong insofar as it does not address the present situation?

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

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.

(translation):

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm wrong, but too insecure to admit it.

At the end of the day, the LL would have to follow the same procedure (S21) to regain possession of his property under these circumstances. That includes the usual notice period. The notion that the LL can approach the courts without further notice is as laughable as your use of the phrase "notice to quit" when refering to a tenants notice of termination, ie it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong....

I would suggest that you stick to the simple answers. You seem perfectly suited to them.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

(translation):

At the end of the day, the LL would have to follow the same procedure (S21) to regain possession of his property under these circumstances. That includes the usual notice period. The notion that the LL can approach the courts without further notice is as laughable as your use of the phrase "notice to quit" when refering to a tenants notice of termination, ie it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong....

I would suggest that you stick to the simple answers. You seem perfectly suited to them.

We're all waiting for references backing your claim that a tenant's NTQ does not end the tenancy, then (please refrain from using further Youtube videos)

"wee" is certainly an appropriate adjective for many of your attributes. And your manners are less than that, inexistent.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Perhaps the initial statement is wrong insofar as it does not address the present situation?

A notice from a tenant is only an indication of intent. It could be viewed in much the same way as the promise of repairs given by a LL at a viewing. Until the ACT of surrender is performed, the tenancy remains live unless a court decides otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way condoning the actions of this self serving tenant. However, there is nothing to stop the LL from taking his reasonable costs from the bond. He could even try taking the cost of providing temp accomm to his new tenants.

Of course, an interesting argument that does arise is.. when DOES the tenancy end? By overstaying, could it be argued that the notice served by the tenant is frustrated/invalid? If so, does their rental liability continue until new notice is served? Does their rental liability continue until a full rental period has passed AFTER the return of the keys? Can that rental liability be taken from the bond? I'm not so sure that the tenant can just walk away from this in quite the manner they wish.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

We're all waiting for references backing your claim that a tenant's NTQ does not end the tenancy, then (please refrain from using further Youtube videos)

"wee" is certainly an appropriate adjective for many of your attributes. And your manners are less than that, inexistent.

Ummmmmm..... Does the 1988 Housing Act ring any bells with you?

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A notice from a tenant is only an indication of intent. It could be viewed in much the same way as the promise of repairs given by a LL at a viewing. Until the ACT of surrender is performed, the tenancy remains live unless a court decides otherwise.

I'm not sure there is any point to repeat once more time that this is incorrect... This is the definition of a notice to quit that it ends the tenancy.
Hence also why the landlord can in principle invoke the Distress for Rent act 1737 to ask for double the rent after the tenant's NTQ's expiry.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

when DOES the tenancy end? By overstaying, could it be argued that the notice served by the tenant is frustrated/invalid?

You did not follow anything did you?

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If so, does their rental liability continue until new notice is served? Does their rental liability continue until a full rental period has passed

So you claim that a tenant's notice to quit does not end the tenancy but you are not sure whether rent would still be due...

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

AFTER the return of the keys?

Return of keys has never a special significance and has to be taken in the context of other actions.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Ummmmmm..... Does the 1988 Housing Act ring any bells with you?

That's the point, it does not apply once assured tenancy has ended...

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm not sure there is any point to repeat once more time that this is incorrect... This is the definition of a notice to quit that it ends the tenancy.
Hence also why the landlord can in principle invoke the Distress for Rent act 1737 to ask for double the rent after the tenant's NTQ's expiry.

Oh dear. I can see you are getting very confused by a really simple concept. The Distress for Rent act 1737 does NOTHING to end a tenancy.

Now, are you any further forward in providing an answer to my original question? It's rather pertinent to your suggestion above. Perhaps it's slipped your mind.... Please, allow me to remind you....

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?

Or are you suggesting that LL's be allowed to drag tenants out by their hair once the tenants notice has expired?

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Now, are you any further forward in providing an answer to my original question? It's rather pertinent to your suggestion above.

Already replied in post #71.

Now, you on the other hand has not provided a reply as to (1)why you think a notice to quit is not in fact, well a nice to quit, and (2) why you do not seem sure about the rent situation after the tenant's notice's expiry.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that LL's be allowed to drag tenants out by their hair once the tenants notice has expired?

I also have already replied to this.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Already replied in post #71.

Well, no... You didn't. Do you want me to repeat it again?

jjlandlord wrote: »

Now, you on the other hand has not provided a reply as to (1)why you think a notice to quit is not in fact, well a nice to quit, and (2) why you do not seem sure about the rent situation after the tenant's notice's expiry.

(1) Because it's a notice of intention to surrender.
(2) I was merely raising pertinent arguments to another poster. I have stated my belief that the tenancy doesn't expire. I'm waiting for a reasoned counter argument from you.

jjlandlord wrote: »

I also have already replied to this.

Indeed, by stating that the LL can approach the courts without service of any further notice. Of course, you have provided no evidence that this is anything other than your own, ill informed opinion.

jjlandlord

Notices to quit end the tenancy (common Law)
Valid expiry dates for notices to quit clarified by Crate -v- Miller [1947] 1 KB 946. Summary (from Swarb):

A weekly tenancy which begins on Saturday may be determined validly by notice to quit either on Friday or Saturday

Hence why e.g. Shelter says that "The notice should end on the first or last day of the period of a tenancy."

Talking about Shelter, It'd be best to quote the whole paragraph here:

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

Once we accept that the tenancy has terminated, it should follow that the housing act 1988 no longer applies and that proceedings to evict the 'tenant' may start immediately following the same procedure as for other trespassers.
'Tenant' does remain protected by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 [see s.3(1)], though, so it is not possible to just change the locks while he is away (as would be possible in case of squatters).