Landlord Changes His Mind...

zarf2007

michaelvintner wrote: »

It's not the new owners fault that the place they intended to move to was owned by a Cowboy. Why should the new owners be put out. How would you feel if the same thing happened to you. I rent and if I am asked to move I will move providing I am given the 2 months required notice.

I wouldnt like it, but then I would never exchange with tenants still living in the property.....its life in the big city, if they are stupid enough to do that then they will get burned....

also the OP's relative could always say they have been living at home/a friends if asked for a previous reference...

simpywimpy

I agree, the new owners should have visited the property the day before to check everything is as stated. Once signed it's their problem not the seller

mutter

zarf2007 wrote: »

this may sound mercenary but they technically have the new owners by the B***s. As they have exchanged with tenants in place (which you should never do unless you are a BTL landlord and it suits) they could demand 'compensation' to move or failing that dig in and delay the purchase, this would replace the money they lost!

i'm sure that not all landlords know each other around there.

Never going to happen.
Daughter and co have no beef with their current agent or the people who have bought their flat, who aren't the people who have caused the problem here, and they will leave it in accordance with their tenancy agreement.


I never said all the landlords know each other, but most of the letting agents do and with rental property very scarce in the area, bad news about bad tenants would travel fast.

The question was - have they got any redress against the new letting agent or the person who would have been their landlord if they had't changed their mind minutes before they were due to move in?

franklee

mutter wrote: »

The question was - have they got any redress against the new letting agent or the person who would have been their landlord if they had't changed their mind minutes before they were due to move in?

Usually the tenant pays the first months rent in advance and the keys wouldn't be handed over till after that. So given the landlord pulled out so late I think your daughter may have a claim if she had already paid any rent.

You may want to look into the comments in post #5 here:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?338938-landlord-changes-mind-after-deposit-and-rent-paid
QUOTE: "In the present posting, as the tenant has paid the first month's rent, a tenancy exists, by virtue of that payment, and the landlord can be sued by the tenant for breach of contract if he now refuses to let the tenant into the property let."

See also
Tenant unable to move in – what are her rights?
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/20/tenant-unable-to-move-in-what-are-her-rights/?doing_wp_cron=1380075013.6309659481048583984375

mutter wrote: »

Daughter and co have no beef with their current agent or the people who have bought their flat, who aren't the people who have caused the problem here, and they will leave it in accordance with their tenancy agreement.

As has been posted already the section 21 is the first stage of the landlord seeking possession. There is no oblation for your daughter to move out at the end of the S21 notice period, she can stay while the landlord gets a possession order etc, which all in will probably be another month or two.

The buyer and seller should not have exchanged contracts until the tenants had vacated if ti was vital for the buyer to move in on completion day. That they took the risk to go ahead when the property may not be vacant in time is their own choice and not the tenant's fault.

This is not breaching the tenancy agreement. Indeed it's common for letting agents to serve the S21 as routine and then not let the tenant leave until they have served their own notice. So it's common for agents to be used to dealing with tenants who have stayed past the S21 notice date. Your daughter will be able to explain to the next agent / landlord she did all she could to arrange a move and it wasn't her fault it fell through. If she stays past the S21 date she can either negotiate a new leaving date with her current landlord or serve her own notice to leave. Whichever way do it in writing. Unless your daughter has already served her own notice in which case best stick to it.

zarf2007

mutter wrote: »

Never going to happen.
Daughter and co have no beef with their current agent or the people who have bought their flat, who aren't the people who have caused the problem here, and they will leave it in accordance with their tenancy agreement.


I never said all the landlords know each other, but most of the letting agents do and with rental property very scarce in the area, bad news about bad tenants would travel fast.

The question was - have they got any redress against the new letting agent or the person who would have been their landlord if they had't changed their mind minutes before they were due to move in?

Then unfortunately she will probably lose any expenses she has incurred through this whole fiasco. Its great to take the higher ground and have morals, but it wont get your money back.

Guest101

Some people do make me think.

We have laws in place to protect people, but their morals prevent them from using these laws and make their own situation worse.

anselld

Guest101 wrote: »

Some people do make me think.

We have laws in place to protect people, but their morals prevent them from using these laws and make their own situation worse.

Why is that such a surprise?

If the new L had the moral fibre to ensure their property was ready to let and honour their agreement then this problem would not have arisen. Why drag another few innocent parties into the mess just because the law allows it?

Prothet_of_Doom

anselld wrote: »

Why is that such a surprise?

If the new L had the moral fibre to ensure their property was ready to let and honour their agreement then this problem would not have arisen. Why drag another few innocent parties into the mess just because the law allows it?

Indeed. It's dog eat dog out there and unless you can climb like a Cat, you need to use what little protection you have.

mutter

Thanks for all your replies.

Can't help but be surprised that the people coming in for the most criticism here are the people who are buying the flat and my daughter and her housemates for making arrangements to move out at the end of their Tenancy Agreement.

Very little criticism of the landlord who was happy to let prospective tenants believe they were going to move into his property right up until 2 days after they were supposed to, and then pull the rug out from under their feet.


Funny old world isn't it?

franklee

mutter wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies.

Can't help but be surprised that the people coming in for the most criticism here are the people who are buying the flat and my daughter and her housemates for making arrangements to move out at the end of their Tenancy Agreement.

Very little criticism of the landlord who was happy to let prospective tenants believe they were going to move into his property right up until 2 days after they were supposed to, and then pull the rug out from under their feet.


Funny old world isn't it?

I put up a post with two useful links discussing what claim your daughter *may* have against the landlord who pulled out. So it did address your specific question. However she has a duty to mitigate her loss. Therefore it's important to point out what your daughter could do to mitigate losses which is where her not being obliged to move right away comes in. If she wants to bear extra costs of being homeless and moving twice herself due to your "moral" stance then fine but she cannot expect the aborted landlord to pay for your morals.