Tenants not moving out

ValHaller

G_M wrote: »

My advice ValHaller - don't feed the trolls.

I'm rather thinking we have all fed a troll with 2 heads.

joolsybools

Who informed the tenants that the tenancy would only be for 6 months? It may be a 6 month AST (still waiting for detila from OP) but that does not necessarily mean it will not be for more than 6 months. Did you categorically tell them to their faces that it would not be renewed after 6 months and that you would be moving back in or did you rely on an agent to tell them this?

What's all this about the tenants wanting to become homeless, have I missed it on the OP?

BitterAndTwisted

The thread-starter did not disclose this in their first post. They saved this tidbit for later on once they'd had a good rant and let other posters fill in the blanks.

Still, it appears that they've had all the advice they need in order to regain possession of their property. Very possibly not until about March, I reckon if the tenants stick it out until the bitter end. Which they very well may compelled to do if they are intent on getting rehoused by their Local Authority.

Meanwhile the OP would be advised to find their own six-month AST asap

DragonQ

ViolaLass wrote: »

Ridiculous. I've never spent anything near that amount on moving. And paying the new deposit is hardly a long term financial issue given that you'll probably get the old one back within a month.

Who knows, with a landlord like the OP it may be ages until you get it back!

However, even excluding the deposit, there are plenty of moving costs. £300 on agency fees, £150 on professional cleaning (which most agents require upon moving out), £50 on moving van, plus all the time spent actually packing, moving and unpacking.

I can sympathise with the OP if the tenants are indeed choosing to stay after it was made clear that the OP needed the house back after 6 months and they agreed to this. However, it's their legal right to do so. My question is why on Earth did the OP rent the house for 6 months to begin with if she knew she might need the place back after 6 months? If she needed it after 12 months then a 6 month AST makes sense - she could serve an S21 and then seek court possession after say 9 months if they refuse to leave and get the property back in time. But 6 months isn't enough time considering the shortest AST (in practice) is also 6 months.

googler

Wirenth wrote: »

I feel for the OP, because, as another poster said, this is their home, not a business asset, and I can feel the worry in their posts.

It became a business asset the moment they took money from another party in exchange for providing it as a home to that party.

If they wanted it to remain as their home, they shouldn't have rented it out.

Guest101

DragonQ wrote: »

Who knows, with a landlord like the OP it may be ages until you get it back!

However, even excluding the deposit, there are plenty of moving costs. £300 on agency fees, £150 on professional cleaning (which most agents require upon moving out), £50 on moving van, plus all the time spent actually packing, moving and unpacking.

I can sympathise with the OP if the tenants are indeed choosing to stay after it was made clear that the OP needed the house back after 6 months and they agreed to this. However, it's their legal right to do so. My question is why on Earth did the OP rent the house for 6 months to begin with if she knew she might need the place back after 6 months? If she needed it after 12 months then a 6 month AST makes sense - she could serve an S21 and then seek court possession after say 9 months if they refuse to leave and get the property back in time. But 6 months isn't enough time considering the shortest AST (in practice) is also 6 months.

Just so its clear, you do not need a 'professional clean', no matter what they say. You need to leave the house in the same condition as you found it, less wear and tear

DragonQ

Guest101 wrote: »

Just so its clear, you do not need a 'professional clean', no matter what they say. You need to leave the house in the same condition as you found it, less wear and tear

Exactly, and if it was professionally cleaned before you move in, you pretty much have to do the same when moving out. The last place I was in, we cleaned it ourselves and still ended up having to pay £50 because of dusty light switches etc.

I'm pretty sure it was in our contract too.

joolsybools

Guest101 wrote: »

Just so its clear, you do not need a 'professional clean', no matter what they say. You need to leave the house in the same condition as you found it, less wear and tear

I would disagree with this. A property I rented a year or two ago stipulated this in the contract. When we moved out we did not do it (we did clean!) and the deposit went into dispute with the TDS for that amongst other things. One of the things they upheld was that the contract said it needs to be professionally cleaned and we had to pay the spurious amount on the quote the LA had for professional cleaning.

Werdnal

But who determines what a "professional clean" is? If my "profession" was a housewife, and part of my regular daily task was cleaning my house, I could perform a "professional clean" myself!

The tenancy agreement clause of professional cleaning has been successfully countered before, as tenant only need leave the property in equal or better condition as let. Possibly if you failed to do this, then your agents won the case through proof that further cleaning was needed, rather than the insistence that you failed to get it "professionally" done.

joolsybools

No, we did leave it better than it was and sadly there is no right of appeal against TDS decisions. You chose TDS OR court, not one then the other.