Eviction in 7 days

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Well, you should have come here for advice, because the worst they could have done to you if you did not sign up is give you a Section 21 notice seeking repossession - and you could have used stalling tactics over the contract to ensure that a S21 was not issued until about now, which would have left you secure until November time

He did come here!
Previous thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4078051

G_M

sturman wrote: »

I offered that to the LL but under influence from the LA declined.I offered him 2 months notice{see my other post]but he declined.The LA gave me a section 21 when i signed a years contract that expired a year later.Maybe there should be a law stating that properties can only be marketed with vacant possesion......Because things happens....dont be so judgemental...i just want advice about eviction not a lecture

You did not need to 'offer' anything. You just needed to
a) not sign the new contract and
b) stay.

Result? A SPT and you would then only need to serve one months notice which could be done when you Exchanged Contracts.

But you messed up and now you are messing everyone else up.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

He did come here!
Previous thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4078051

So he did and I see that I replied on the thread. Given the naive LL, it was difficult, but I think that the naive LL could have been managed better. Having said that, I think that the best option for the OP is to stay beyond his notice and let the naive LL take the hit of letting his tenants down. In the same way that OP has made a mistake giving notice before exchange, I think that the naive LL has made the same mistake by letting the place out before the previous tenant has surrendered the tenancy. I am not so inclined to lay the guilt of the disappointed new tenants on OP as on his LL.

sturman

jjlandlord wrote: »

You did not serve notice because LL/agent wanted you to sign a new contract (which would not make much sense), you did not sign a new contract because you wanted to be able to leave in September.
And your contract ran out in August.
This was the discussion in your previous thread.

Not signing a new contract was a good idea. Serving notice before you had exchanged not so much.

As in my previous thread it states they served me a section 21 which expires on the 11 /08/12. If i didnt give a notice to leave they could of gone to court.I was very sure along with my solicitor that we would be ok but it didnt happen.I would of liked it to be more organised ....but things happen,the landlord may lose a tennant but there is many more out there..its the LA who loses out and therein lies the problem

DVardysShadow

sturman wrote: »

If i didnt give a notice to leave they could of gone to court

And now you have given it, they might still take it to court. So not a lot gained.

sturman

vincent.waldorf wrote: »

Sturman you genuinely make my blood boil. Who do you think you are to be messing around the LL and his new tenants?
Really annoys me how you are looking for loopholes to stay longer to fit your timelines. Stop being so cheap and move your kids into a B&B or something ... I'm sure that the LL will let you pitch up in the garden?

Probably cooking your brain right now...You sound like a person who reads something and just fits it into your little world...Read everything and then spout.

sturman

G_M wrote: »

You did not need to 'offer' anything. You just needed to
a) not sign the new contract and
b) stay.

Result? A SPT and you would then only need to serve one months notice which could be done when you Exchanged Contracts.

But you messed up and now you are messing everyone else up.

Say that i did mess up, you think i should be homeless for that..Being a LL is a business and just a bit of resonsibility.They should know the law far more than punters. However if you read what i posted you are totally wrong,but your advice is of no value
Thanks

franklee

I have little sympathy with the landlord here as the precautionary service of the section 21 notice (Sword of Damocles) and the "refusal" to allow a periodic tenancy is what panicked the tenant into giving his own notice prematurely. This demonstrates that using a S21 to bully a tenant can backfire.

I did comment on the OP's previous thread in July:

franklee wrote: »

What a tenant should not do is serve their own notice before they have secured anywhere else as holding over on their own notice is expensive. As is finding temporary accommodation and/or temporary storage for their furniture and having to move everything twice.

As for the expense of holding over there is information about the Distress for Rent Act and a tenant holding over liable for double rent here:
Tenant’s Notices to Quit, Holding Over and Double Rent
http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2009/11/22/tenants-notices-to-quit-holding-over-and-double-rent/

rpc

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And now you have given it, they might still take it to court. So not a lot gained.

In fact, the OP has probably lost because if LL goes to court then they are liable for double rent. If he had let the LL go to court on their S21, that penalty wouldn't apply.

OP needs to follow the advice given and move into a B&B for a couple of weeks. It will be less stress all round and fairer on both LL (OK, not too much sympathy here) and the new tenants (who have done nothing wrong, may have kids etc). OP gave notice, OP should stand by that notice.

sturman

rpc wrote: »

In fact, the OP has probably lost because if LL goes to court then they are liable for double rent. If he had let the LL go to court on their S21, that penalty wouldn't apply.

OP needs to follow the advice given and move into a B&B for a couple of weeks. It will be less stress all round and fairer on both LL (OK, not too much sympathy here) and the new tenants (who have done nothing wrong, may have kids etc). OP gave notice, OP should stand by that notice.

My thought process was that a vacating letter may have stalled the court process for a month.Section 21 had already been served a year ago.I thought that should completion[which was 95% certain] take place,no probs and if not LL would have to wait.Maybe LL should regard it as a bonus if they have no dead time on their property and liasse closely with tenants if they want to have continuous occupancy...I get a feeling that this is a forum by LL for LL