Notice to quit/leave help please.

tbs624

thesaint wrote: »

Notice can be given by phone(it is neither illegal or unlaawful), but the tenant is free to not accept it.

Attempting to give a T notice via a phone call is a pretty useless way of operating if the T remains in situ and the LL wants to actually pursue the matter to court.

thesaint wrote: »

What does the tenancy agreement state about access for viewings?

As martinsurrey's post says....."they it could say “we can enter the property whenever we like day or night” but its completely invalid and unenforceable."

A LL obviously needs a property to look at its best to entice a new T into an agreement. A T who is leaving over disrepair issues is (a) not going to be likely to facilitate that and (b) may well let the potential replacement T know how the LA/LL treats their Ts.

Some Ts may be of a mind to offer up viewing slots, only to sit around in their y fronts consuming cabbage and kippers and having ensured that the bathroom and kitchen areas look particularly sordid. Add a few leaflets left lying around on how to handle vermin infestation, noisy neighbours, high crime rates and LLs who won't repair etc and a costly void is pretty much assured.

Fire_Fox

thesaint wrote: »

Notice can be given by phone(it is neither illegal or unlaawful), but the tenant is free to not accept it.

What does the tenancy agreement state about access for viewings?

Irrelevant what the tenancy agreement says about access, the tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment so can withdraw permission to access the property at any time. Tenants rights in law always trump unfair or unenforceable clauses in an AST. As someone on MSE pointed out some months ago, you could put in the tenancy agreement that the landlord must be cooked a Sunday roast with all the trimmings each week, doesn't mean you could enforce that clause.

G_M

paddedjohn wrote: »

Thanks for the help so far, ive just found out that she changed her rent date from the 4th to the 14th after about 2 years and she paid an extra 10 days rent to allow this to happen. Her rent is now payable on the 14th of each month and has been for 3 years so is this the date her notice will start/end or is it her old date of the 4th?

You have not confirmed whether her tenancy is Fixed Term (ie she has repeatedly signed new 6 (or 12/whatever) month agreements for the last 3 years), or Periodic (ie the FT has run out/not been renewed and tenancy is 'rolling').

As per my linked post above,
* if Fixed Term, Notice is two calender months (from date of service).
* If Periodic, it is two Tenancy Periods. These are not related to rent payment date, but run (usually) monthly from the day after the last FT ended.

As tbs said above, the Landlordzone link leaves something to be desired, hence my own version which I hope/believe
a) is accurate
b) covers most scenarios

(though I am, as always, open to correction/improvement suggestions)

G_M

Cissi wrote: »

It's "irrelevant" because it doesn't matter what the contract says! The tenant has a statutory right to quiet enjoyment even if there is a clause about access for viewings in the contract.

In the interests of ensuring we all give best advice in future, can you point to the statute you are referring to? Personally I have never come across such a statute...

My understanding is that 'quiet enjoyment' is an implied contractual right. It is not, however, an absolute right, since a LL may also have contractual rights of access, either implied or express.

I agree that a tenant can rely on 'quiet enjoyment' with some confidence, but it is not ( so far as I know...) an undisputable right set out as you suggest in statute.

tbs624

G_M makes an important point

G_M wrote: »

My understanding is that 'quiet enjoyment' is an implied contractual right.

which may also appear expressly within the tenancy agreement

G_M wrote: »

It is not, however, an absolute right, since a LL may also have contractual rights of access, either implied or express.

In this scenario, however, the LA seems to think such LL rights of access extend to
" viewings at the LA/LL's convenience" - clearly this is not the case and other posters are right to say that just because x clause states y with in the tenancy agreement it is by necessity enforceable.

If a T refuses access then the LL only has the option of seeking a court order. It would be a very silly LL who pursued that issue, having himself apparently failed to to undertake repairs and then appearing to be trying circumvent correct S21 procedures in order to boot the T out

tbs624

On the subject of LL access, I was "fascinated" to read the guidance offered to LLs in an article in the Telegraph's Property Club pages, written by someone called Zoe Dare Hall.

I quote:

"Dressing to let can be difficult if your property is occupied, so you either need to wait until a void period, then style it just how you want it, or you need amenable tenants.Telling them that if they keep the property clean and tidy they will be less inconvenienced by work to smarten it up should help." My bolding.

Sounds a bit like a "threat" IMHO - kind of "if you don't keep the property (ie your home, the one for which you are paying rent) all hunky dory for potential new Ts to view then there will of course be all sorts of noisy work inflicted during the final part of your tenancy. Perhaps others will interpret that differently.

Outgoing T may, of course, simply decide that they will not be inconvenienced by any such work for the remainder of their tenancy unless of course the LL would like to be "amenable" and make a sizeable reduction in the rent for that period.....

G_M

tbs624 wrote: »

On the subject of LL access, I was "fascinated" to read the guidance offered to LLs in an article in the Telegraph's Property Club pages, written by someone called Zoe Dare Hall.

I quote:

"Dressing to let can be difficult if your property is occupied, so you either need to wait until a void period, then style it just how you want it, or you need amenable tenants.Telling them that if they keep the property clean and tidy they will be less inconvenienced by work to smarten it up should help." My bolding.

Sounds a bit like a "threat" IMHO - kind of "if you don't keep the property (ie your home, the one for which you are paying rent) all hunky dory for potential new Ts to view then there will of course be all sorts of noisy work inflicted during the final part of your tenancy. Perhaps others will interpret that differently.

Outgoing T may, of course, simply decide that they will not be inconvenienced by any such work for the remainder of their tenancy unless of course the LL would like to be "amenable" and make a sizeable reduction in the rent for that period.....

:rotfl:
Never come across Zoe Dare Hall, but the fact that this was in the Telegraph makes it less surprising.......

lighting_up_the_chalice

G_M wrote: »

In the interests of ensuring we all give best advice in future, can you point to the statute you are referring to? Personally I have never come across such a statute...

My understanding is that 'quiet enjoyment' is an implied contractual right. It is not, however, an absolute right, since a LL may also have contractual rights of access, either implied or express.

I agree that a tenant can rely on 'quiet enjoyment' with some confidence, but it is not ( so far as I know...) an undisputable right set out as you suggest in statute.

I have to ask, what do you understand the meaning of "exclusive possession" to be if one cannot exclude?

The statute is Part1, S1 Protection From Eviction Act 1977, amended by S29 Housing Act 1988......

"the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household,"

lighting_up_the_chalice

thesaint wrote: »

Notice can be given by phone(it is neither illegal or unlaawful), but the tenant is free to not accept it.

What does the tenancy agreement state about access for viewings?

S21 of the Housing Act 1988 is quite clear on this. Notice under S21 MUST be given IN WRITING. If it's not IN WRITING, it's not given.

S21 (1)(b) the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months’ notice in writing stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house.

S21(4)(a)that the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant a notice in writing stating that, after a date specified in the notice, being the last day of a period of the tenancy and not earlier than two months after the date the notice was given, possession of the dwelling-house is required by virtue of this section;

Cissi

G_M wrote: »

In the interests of ensuring we all give best advice in future, can you point to the statute you are referring to? Personally I have never come across such a statute...

My understanding is that 'quiet enjoyment' is an implied contractual right. It is not, however, an absolute right, since a LL may also have contractual rights of access, either implied or express.

I agree that a tenant can rely on 'quiet enjoyment' with some confidence, but it is not ( so far as I know...) an undisputable right set out as you suggest in statute.

I stand corrected

It's still my understanding that the landlord (or agent) can't legally insist on conducting viewings whenever they want to, if the tenant doesn't agree - no matter what is written in the contract. Of course, a certain level of cooperation is usually advisable - with a view to a decent reference if nothing else - but in this case it seems that the agent has acted unreasonably and so I personally wouldn't be inclined to be too helpful. But my comment above was directed at the poster who kept referring to possible clauses in the contract which ARE irrelevant as legally unenforceable. It wasn't intended as advise to the OP to categorically refuse all viewings, and I apologise if it came across that way.