Landlord sells property and wants us out

[Deleted User]

For them to argue in this way.., it sounds like they think they are very clear on the purposes of the S21.., but I suspect they are wrong.

See GM's post (6) in this thread again. Plus quite a few people have said leave the LL to find out the hard way that they can't operate like this and expect you out so their sellers can move in at the end of May.., but u seem to have ignored this.

They can give you notice.., but if you don't move out, then a S21 has to be served if one hasn't been already. Even if there wasn't the deposit protection issue that may invalidate any S21 notice.., only after a valid S21 notice has been served can an eviction order be issued by a court and only after another court appearance, bailiffs be employed to get you out. They don't seem to be clear on that point. I don't know how many days after the 30 days your deposit was protected but I think their position is very weak. The various court appearances will take time, and they presumably are selling the property 'vacant'. So they are not in as strong a position as they think.

However, I'd clarify this. And start preparing a list of what you need to cover your losses. Just make it clear that you can't afford to move right now, and will need your losses covered (and early return of your deposit) to enable you to meet their deadlines.

And make sure that you change your lock cylinders if the LL's have keys to the property doors.

nadirnwo

deannatrois wrote: »

For them to argue in this way.., it sounds like they think they are very clear on the purposes of the S21.., but I suspect they are wrong.

See GM's post (6) in this thread again. Plus quite a few people have said leave the LL to find out the hard way that they can't operate like this and expect you out so their sellers can move in at the end of May.., but u seem to have ignored this.

They can give you notice.., but if you don't move out, then a S21 has to be served if one hasn't been already. Even if there wasn't the deposit protection issue that may invalidate any S21 notice.., only after a valid S21 notice has been served can an eviction order be issued by a court and only after another court appearance, bailiffs be employed to get you out. They don't seem to be clear on that point. I don't know how many days after the 30 days your deposit was protected but I think their position is very weak. The various court appearances will take time, and they presumably are selling the property 'vacant'. So they are not in as strong a position as they think.

However, I'd clarify this. And start preparing a list of what you need to cover your losses. Just make it clear that you can't afford to move right now, and will need your losses covered (and early return of your deposit) to enable you to meet their deadlines.

And make sure that you change your lock cylinders if the LL's have keys to the property doors.

I wrote a brief letter and put it in the post and then to be on the safe side I scanned a copy and emailed it as well. Usually I don't get a response, but now I am getting a flurry of emails.

I am trying to not get into a debate with the LL. The argument they are putting forward are:

- they are exercising the break clause and not issuing a S21 so therefore issues related to tenancy deposit are not valid.
- the fact that I did not say anything earlier means that the law is no longer valid
- they agree that Prescribed Information has not been issued but say that since they have not issued S21, it does not matter
- they say the government website site says 30 days from the landlord receiving the money and they have interpreted that it means the date the LL receives the money from the letting agent, not the date that the tenant forwards it to the letting agent. The fact that I did not say anything earlier means that I have agreed to this interpretation (I am not sure how I would know any of this so how would I agree to it?)

jjlandlord

nadirnwo wrote: »

- they are exercising the break clause and not issuing a S21 so therefore issues related to tenancy deposit are not valid.

That's correct.
But then it means that they are not seeking to make you leave, but just to end your fixed term tenancy.
If you have that in writing, I'd keep it safe.

They still have to serve you notice correctly according to the break clause, which I'm not convinced they have.

The rest is just rubbish that you can ignore.
Of course, again, if you have their admission the no PI were given in writing, do keep it.

nadirnwo

The letter they have sent states that they require us to surrender the property on the 31st of May. It seems that they want to have it both ways, the letter is not an S21, but they want it to have the same effect...should the notice exercising the break clause state that they seek to end of the fixed term of the contract?

They still have to serve you notice correctly according to the break clause, which I'm not convinced they have.

May I ask what makes you say that?

Finst

You know, I think I've changed my mind. Given what you've said about how the landlord is seemingly playing hardball and talking a load of rubbish to get you out, I would now be seriously considering taking the non-protection of deposit to court and going for the associated penalties!

jjlandlord

nadirnwo wrote: »

May I ask what makes you say that?

Post #18.

Anyway, if they intend to get you out they will succeed. The only question is when and at which cost.

You are in a good position to negotiate on your terms.
If they can't and don't want to realise that, well they will when their legal proceedings fail and they get sued for non-protection of deposit.

DTDfanBoy

I don't think your landlord actually understands the situation they have created, they seem to be fairly clueless about the whole process.


How much do you actually know about the state of the sale ?


If the landlord has actually exchanged with a date set for June 1st they have placed themselves in a really bad position :eek:


If they have been silly enough to have exchanged with a completion date in the near future, as soon as they receive some legal advice you can expect to receive your deposit back ASAP.


They'll probably also be willing to pay your moving costs and the deposit for your next flat :rotfl::rotfl:;)

thequant

nadirnwo wrote: »

The letter they have sent states that they require us to surrender the property on the 31st of May. It seems that they want to have it both ways, the letter is not an S21, but they want it to have the same effect...should the notice exercising the break clause state that they seek to end of the fixed term of the contract?

I'm not 100% certain about how break clauses work with regards to notice, but on the assumption that they needed to give two month notice then they have missed it and cant exercise it now.

Their letter dated the 31st march missed the dealine irrespective of when it was served as the court will deem that it was served too late as you must allow time for it to be received. The clock starts ticking when you are deemed to have recieved it.

Soot2006

In any case LL cannot MAKE you leave with anything other than a court order, so LL arguing that his notice is valid is illogical.

If it is or if it isn't, in either case the notice expires, the LL then applies to the court to have you evicted ... presumably finds out round about then that actually the "notice" wasn't valid. The whole thing starts again.

Until they accept this, however, they won't negotiate because they seem to think they are in a position of power. Very frustrating.

This is priceless!! I'll remember that next time I need a new car. Will steal one of a nice dealer's forecourt and if no one stops me at the time that means they've lost their right to have it back.

" - the fact that I did not say anything earlier means that the law is no longer valid "

nadirnwo

Thank you all for your comments, the landlords letting agent has now stepped in and sent me the following:


I do not think that the information that you have provided regarding the refund of the security deposit linking to the section 21(A) is accurate. In this instance a section 21 is not required, as the landlord is exercising their break clause and this technically falls under the fixed term in accordance with the break clause. The landlord has fulfilled their lawful contractual obligation in consideration of this notice. Your comments regarding the link between the section 21 and the protection of the security deposit do not apply to this scenario given the fact that the section 21 notice is not required. Please follow the link below to the government website regarding the aforementioned:

https://www.gov.uk/gaining-possession-of-a-privately-rented-property-let-on-an-assured-shorthold-tenancy

The technicality that you have raised is accurate in that the landlord has 30 days to protect the security deposit following the payment of the security deposit by tenant. I can confirm that the deposit was paid to us on the 18th September 2013 and the subsequent landlord payment was made on the 23rd of September. The landlord has confirmed that they started the deposit protection with the DPS prior to this, however, the DPS takes a few days for the payment to reach their account. As such, the final protection came into effect shortly thereafter. The landlord has acted in good faith and has not attempted to deal with the matter in an underhanded manner. Should you wish to raise any dispute further to you moving out of the property, any judge who the matter was put forward to would take a view on the aforementioned and would be unlikely to take on the case.