Statutory Periodic Tenancy

jjlandlord

may_fair wrote: »

Using this theoretical example, if the T vacated on 22nd August, she would be liable for rent in lieu of notice up to 14th October (because that is the earliest her notice could expire if she had given notice on 22nd August).

True on the condition that the LL does treat the tenancy as continuing, imo.
E.g. if T vacated on 22nd August and LL took possession back on 1st September or re-let, T's liability ended on 1st September.

Trebor01

Colincbayley - you don't know the back ground to this tenancy so trust me there is a point.
Moromir - No I am using the same rules ('by the book'') that the tenant has chosen.

JJlandlord - The tenant left on the 28th June, but due out according to tenancy agreement on the 22nd June, the house was re rented August 6th. I had no idea how long she planned to stay.

The rules around the SPT are clear and this is indeed what has happened, and I will expect a judge to apply the letter of the law in this matter.

franklee

Trebor01 wrote: »

JJlandlord - The tenant left on the 28th June, but due out according to tenancy agreement on the 22nd June, the house was re rented August 6th. I had no idea how long she planned to stay.

The rules around the SPT are clear and this is indeed what has happened, and I will expect a judge to apply the letter of the law in this matter.

Can you explain what "due out" means? Do you mean that was the end of the fixed term and/or is that when a S21 notice you served was up? Did you serve a S8? Up to what date did the tenant pay rent?

If you served notice and made it clear you wanted the tenant to leave then I'm not sure I see your complaint. It seems your problem is she was six days late leaving in which case given she was working as best as possible to your notice why do you want more rent than up till the date she left?

If she'd just secured her new property by 28th June any notice she served you then would not come into effect till 22nd August by which time you'd have started possession proceedings and to claim your court fee off her. You could have done this any time after 22nd June so by leaving on 28th June she saved you both that cost and hassle.

Obviously you can't claim rent past August 6th when it was re-let but what happened before that. Did you accept the keys and go in and clean/decorate treating the property as in your possession. Or did you indicate to the tenant you considered the tenancy as continuing due to her lack of notice?

My view is either you wanted the tenant to leave or you didn't. This wanting her to leave till she actually goes and then claiming more rent once the property is safely in your possession is dodgy IMO, so I hope you come back and tell us how you get on with this claim.

anselld

Colincbayley wrote: »

No, that is not correct.
If a valid notice was served, stating that the LL required the property to be returned, then it would have stated after XYZ date.
In this case, the tenant can lease without given notice to the LL as the LL has already provided notice to the tenant.

I really don't see what the point of this thread is, the OP wanted the property back, they got it!!

That is exactly what I said. In what way is it not correct?

Trebor01

Can anyone point me to the exact paragraph within the Housing Act that supports the position whereby if a tenant fails to give a LL 4 weeks notice, and fials to agree a new AST, then an SPT ensues. I am now taking this matter to court and as such I would like to be able to clearly address the section within the housing act should I need to do so.

chris_m

You're only asking this now, after 17 months?

theartfullodger

Trebor01 wrote: »

Can anyone point me to the exact paragraph within the Housing Act that supports the position whereby if a tenant fails to give a LL 4 weeks notice, and fials to agree a new AST, then an SPT ensues. I am now taking this matter to court and as such I would like to be able to clearly address the section within the housing act should I need to do so.

Trebor: Any reason why you didn't bother to look & find out for yourself??

Anyway, should anyone else wanna no... I think it is this...

HA 1988 S5(2)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/5

(2)If an assured tenancy which is a fixed term tenancy comes to an end otherwise than by virtue of—

(a)an order of the court [of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) or any other order of the court], or

(b)a surrender or other action on the part of the tenant,

then, subject to section 7 and Chapter II below, the tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the dwelling-house let under that tenancy and, subject to subsection (4) below, his right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section.

Note this is for an "assured tenancy": An AST is but a special form of AT... (shorthold variety,, natch.....)


There are easy to find courses for Landlord (or agents or other property professionals..) in LL/T law: Usually worth the investment.

If you think education is expensive try ignorance..

Cheers!!

Trebor01

Chris M - and your point is what. If you can't answer the question save your breath.

Trebor01

theartfullodger - wanted to be sure I was looking in the right place or I woudln't have asked. Can't anyone on here just help without the unnecessary comments.

Anyway thansk but I don't think this is it.

Cheers.

Catherine_Johnson_2

Good grief, this all dates back to 2011 and is all because the tenant at the time left 7 days late?

You're really intending to go to Court for rent that you feel was due in 2011?

Surely you can't still be arguing about it now? Life's too short. Let it go, move on.

And before you reply with 'save your breath' and other silly phrases, you'll of course realise that this is an open forum where anyone can post an opinion.

Still, never mind, carry on with your vendetta or whatever it is against this tenant.