Changing the date of vacating the property (tenancy)

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

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):

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:


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).

(Yet) again, what legislation should the LL rely on to regain possession without any further service of notice?

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

(Yet) again, what legislation should the LL rely on to regain possession without any further service of notice?

Do you agree with my post #81?

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Do you agree with my post #81?

No.

Tenant agrees to leave. Changes mind. Doesn't leave. What happens next? It's what I've been asking you all along.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No.

Tenant agrees to leave. Changes mind. Doesn't leave. What happens next? It's what I've been asking you all along.

See all my previous posts and all the references.
At this point there is nothing more I can do.

DVardysShadow

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No.

Tenant agrees to leave. Changes mind. Doesn't leave. What happens next? It's what I've been asking you all along.

This may not be dealt with by statute. So we could be looking at common law for the answer to this.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

See all my previous posts and all the references.
At this point there is nothing more I can do.

Your limitations are noted.

Wee_Willy_Harris

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This may not be dealt with by statute. So we could be looking at common law for the answer to this.

I believe statute provides the answer.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This may not be dealt with by statute. So we could be looking at common law for the answer to this.

Yes, though most of it is put forward in previous posts #40, #43 and #81.
As far as I know there no required notice to evict a trespasser. Landlord can start proceedings through form N130 immediately after NTQ has expired.
Quoting N130:

The claimant is claiming possession of <address of dwelling>
on the grounds that the claimant has an immediate right to possession and that the person(s) in occupation of the premises is (are) in occupation without consent.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I believe statute provides the answer.

Please enlighten us as to which one, then.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Your limitations are noted.

At least I provided arguments and references instead of your knee-jerk, infantile, behaviour.

Wee_Willy_Harris

jjlandlord wrote: »

Yes, though most of it is put forward in previous posts #40, #43 and #81.
As far as I know there no required notice to evict a trespasser. Landlord can start proceedings through form N130 immediately after NTQ has expired.
Quoting N130:

At least I provided arguments and references instead of your knee-jerk, infantile, behaviour.

Consent was granted via the tenancy.

I have provided a clear argument that S21 applies. A tenant cannot become a trespasser under these circs.

jjlandlord

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Consent was granted via the tenancy.

And me who had hoped that post #81 would have shown you that the notice to quit ends the tenancy...

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I have provided a clear argument that S21 applies.

You never provided arguments. You just provided your opinion, without supporting references, that the NTQ does end the tenancy.