Does a tenant have to give notice on a SPT, when a s.21 has been issued?

tumbledowngirl

jamie11 wrote: »

We have had this conversation many times on LLZ.

The gist of it is that because a S21 is not a notice to quit then all the normal rules apply, the tenant with a SPT must follow the contract as written with the exception of the notice periods, so must the landlord.

Obviously if the tenant chooses to leave on receipt of a S21 then a sensible LL will be pleased. It still remains though that the proper legal way is for the tenant to give his landlord the statutory notice.

Daft innit?

What has been the case with our tenant so far is that he was issued the s.21 because we found out he'd breached the tenancy agreement by having 2 cats in the property.
He then said he'd found among other property and could move in straight away, which would mean him leaving a few weeks before the end of the AST but he'd already paid rent up until the end of the AST.
In the event, he changed his mind and didn't leave...and hasn't given any indication of when he may do so.
If he leaves on the date of the s.21, happy days.
However, I suspect he may make plans to leave afterwards on a date that suits him (maybe to minimise having to pay rent on 2 properties).

jamie11

If he pays the rent up to the day he goes then I would be inclined to accept it and let him go, but that's me. It would save the hassle of a court hearing at least.

A S21 for keeping cats does seem a little harsh to me but that's your decision.

tumbledowngirl

jamie11 wrote: »

If he pays the rent up to the day he goes then I would be inclined to accept it and let him go, but that's me. It would save the hassle of a court hearing at least.

A S21 for keeping cats does seem a little harsh to me but that's your decision.[/

The issue with the cats was a bit more involved than it seems - the property was let as a no pets rental. Tenant asked if he could have permission to have 2 kittens. We agreed, on condition that he paid a refundable pet bond. He refused, arguing it was unreasonable...and moved the kittens in anyway.

Given our experience with previous tenants who thought the tenancy agreement they'd signed didn't apply to them, we decided it best to give notice after the end of the AST.

anselld

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

Thank you!
I am actually the landlord and your advice ties in with what I thought - but my LA disagrees. :mad:

The T is entitled to leave at the expiry of the fixed term without giving notice regardless of s21. Perhaps this is what the LA is advising?

tumbledowngirl

anselld wrote: »

The T is entitled to leave at the expiry of the fixed term without giving notice regardless of s21. Perhaps this is what the LA is advising?

No, he was very definite that the tenant didn't now have to give notice after the AST ends, because the s.21 overrides any requirement.

anselld

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

No, he was very definite that the tenant didn't now have to give notice after the AST ends, because the s.21 overrides any requirement.

Sounds like you need a new LA then as well as a new T.

tumbledowngirl

anselld wrote: »

Sounds like you need a new LA then as well as a new T.

Yes, I think you're right.
To be honest, I think the LA is lazy, more than incompetent - the phrase "anything for a quiet life" springs to mind.

G_M

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

The AST expires on 02/11.
A s.21 comes into force on 03/12.

As the AST will become a SPT, the tenant would ordinarily be required to given a minimum one month's notice to quit.

Do the issue of a s.21 have any bearing on the requirement by the tenant to give notice?

Options:

1) tenant can leave on 2/11 without giving any notice (though sensible to give notice)

2) tenant can wait till 3/11 then give notice aligned to tenancy periods of SPT (tenant cannot gve notice to end the SPT before 3/11)

3) tenant and LL can mutually agree any tenancy end date they wish

Clearly in this situation, where tenant wishes to leave and LL wishes tenant to leave, 3) above is the sensible option for all concerned.

Agent's advice is wrong, though. If tenant wishes to leave on expiry of S21 he should give notice to abide strictly with legal requirements. However if he did not, few LLs would take action (esp if they knew in advance the tenant was leaving, but just not with sufficient notce) as
a) not worth the hasstle given T has met LL's desired outcome and
b) court decision on rent/costs etc might (might) go the other way..

Now, don't get me started on how much notice the tenant must give if notice is served on Day 1 of the SPT.........!

Pixie5740

tumbledowngirl wrote: »

Given our experience with previous tenants who thought the tenancy agreement they'd signed didn't apply to them, we decided it best to give notice after the end of the AST.

Your previous experience with tenants is that they wanted to agree a mutual surrender of the tenancy and you refused (which was your right since you had a valid contract with them) and this lead to a massive headache for you. With hindsight it would have been better just to agree to the early surrender rather than continue down the path of being right.

Now history is in danger of repeating itself again. Should the tenant have gone ahead and got the kittens...probably not. Now your faced with a potential void period and having to pay this LA more tenancy finder fees (assuming you stick with this LA or get another LA) all because you're in the right and the tenant is in the wrong.

Would you really take a tenant to court for unpaid rent because they left, and paid rent, up to the date the S21 expired? It sounds like unnecessary hassle.

Just bend with the wind grasshopper, bend with the wind.

tumbledowngirl

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Your previous experience with tenants is that they wanted to agree a mutual surrender of the tenancy and you refused (which was your right since you had a valid contract with them) and this lead to a massive headache for you. With hindsight it would have been better just to agree to the early surrender rather than continue down the path of being right.

Now history is in danger of repeating itself again. Should the tenant have gone ahead and got the kittens...probably not. Now your faced with a potential void period and having to pay this LA more tenancy finder fees (assuming you stick with this LA or get another LA) all because you're in the right and the tenant is in the wrong.

Would you really take a tenant to court for unpaid rent because they left, and paid rent, up to the date the S21 expired? It sounds like unnecessary hassle.

Just bend with the wind grasshopper, bend with the wind.

While you are correct, technically, about our previous tenants, it wasn't quite as simple as that, ultimately. They were "professional tenants" - they forged an AST, they accused our LA and ourselves of entering the property without permission, theft, disrepair, created fake personas to contact and threaten us, tried to fleece our solicitor, went back into the property after they'd vacated and deliberately damaged it, refused to hand back the property so that we had to go down the abandonment route and cost us hundreds of pounds.

We have no intention of taking our current to court.
All I am trying to ascertain is whether he "should" give notice, so that we can request that he does in the hope that he does (any kind of communication of his plans would be good) - the alternative being that our LA says nothing and the tenant leaves with no notice.

I'm more than happy to "bend with the wind", as we showed by agreeing to the kittens on condition of a small pet bond. Shame the tenant didn't feel able to do the same.

Forgot to say - the only money we recovered from our previous tenants was the deposit, because the TDS judged that they hadn't given notice to leave after the end of the fixed term. It would be interesting to see if they would judge the same in this case.