PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Landlord not repaying owed rent.

2

Comments

  • stator
    stator Posts: 7,441 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Common sense prevails. If the landlord asks tenant to leave, by whatever means and the tenant actually leaves then the tenancy is ended and no further rent is due. I would like to see a transcript of any court case where someone can show otherwise.

    To the OP: Put your request in writing to the address shown on your tenancy agreement. Send it with proof of postage. Also send a copy to the letting agent if that is not the same address.
    If they continue to ignore you start a case in small claims court.
    Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    stator wrote: »
    Common sense prevails. If the landlord asks tenant to leave, by whatever means and the tenant actually leaves then the tenancy is ended and no further rent is due. I would like to see a transcript of any court case where someone can show otherwise.

    To the OP: Put your request in writing to the address shown on your tenancy agreement. Send it with proof of postage. Also send a copy to the letting agent if that is not the same address.
    If they continue to ignore you start a case in small claims court.



    Legally a s.21 is not a request to leave.


    Whilst a request to leave could be considered an offer of a surrender, a s.21 is definitely no such thing.


    I don't see what a small claims action would achieve, aside from flushing the court fees away?
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    AAAAaaaaaagghhh!
  • MrJB
    MrJB Posts: 292 Forumite
    edited 23 February 2016 pm29 5:30PM
    Guest101 wrote: »
    To be technical I believe a surrender needs to be executed as a 'deed' and therefore in writing and witnessed.


    In practice this is rarely a requirement.

    Technically a surrender can have more than the form of a deed... When a tenant surrenders their lease to their immediate landlord, who accepts the surrender, the lease is absorbed by the reversionary estate and thus determined. Sometimes a surrender of lease does not take place by deed but is effected by operation of law. The acts and intentions of the parties will be taken into consideration.

    I'd like to see a Landlord try and serve a section 21 notice with the intention of bringing the lease to a conclusion and then accepting keys back from a tenant and then claim that they'd not acted in anyway which constituted acceptance of a surrender.

    The very nature of a Section 21 is that the Landlord is declaring that he/her wishes for possession by a fixed date.

    In any event, my question as to whether the notice was served during the fixed term but expired after the fixed term ended - ie was served just after 10 months in a 12 month fixed term. In that instance, statute which came in last year may cover the eventuality and it should be a relatively straight forward case for the OP.
  • MrJB
    MrJB Posts: 292 Forumite
    See Section 40 - Deregulation Act 2015. If the tenancy has moved to a periodic tenancy, the Landlord has a legal obligation to repay any rent if the tenancy is terminated before the end of a period. Ie if you are served notice part way through the tenancy in the form of a S21(1) that will lead you to a part month, then you're entitled to a pro-rata refund.

    You will have to sue the Landlord, but it's a matter of fact (notwithstanding the advice given above) as to when the tenancy ended. Indeed I am sure you have a copy of your Section 21 from the Landlord. If you need any further clarification speak to a L&T litigation specialist solicitor.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    MrJB wrote: »
    See Section 40 - Deregulation Act 2015. If the tenancy has moved to a periodic tenancy, the Landlord has a legal obligation to repay any rent if the tenancy is terminated before the end of a period. Ie if you are served notice part way through the tenancy in the form of a S21(1) that will lead you to a part month, then you're entitled to a pro-rata refund.

    You will have to sue the Landlord, but it's a matter of fact (notwithstanding the advice given above) as to when the tenancy ended. Indeed I am sure you have a copy of your Section 21 from the Landlord.



    For tenancies which started AFTER 1st OCT 2015.
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 23 February 2016 pm29 5:50PM
    MrJB wrote: »
    .....


    The very nature of a Section 21 is that the Landlord is declaring that he/her wishes for possession by a fixed date.

    In any event, my question as to whether the notice was served during the fixed term but expired after the fixed term ended - ie was served just after 10 months in a 12 month fixed term. In that instance, statute which came in last year may cover the eventuality and it should be a relatively straight forward case for the OP.
    1) That is NOT the nature of a S21 Notice. Else why did many many landlords serve S21s at the start of/early in a tenancy - the so-called 'Sword of Damocles'. The intention with this is to get the 2 month delay out of the way early in the tenancy just in case. It is not a declaration 'that he/her wishes for possession by a fixed date' (sic).

    Many S21s are never acted on (ie tenant does not leave but LL takes no further action).

    2) The statute you refer to (Deregulation Act) only applies to tenancies which commenced after 1/10/15.
  • PasturesNew
    PasturesNew Posts: 70,698 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    G_M wrote: »
    AAAAaaaaaagghhh!

    Cake?
    :bdaycake:
  • MrJB
    MrJB Posts: 292 Forumite
    Guest101 wrote: »
    For tenancies which started AFTER 1st OCT 2015.
    I based my statement on The Law Society guidance notes. Previous case law (Superstrike) suggests a new tenancy is formed when the fixed term expires and the tenancy becomes periodic.
  • MrJB
    MrJB Posts: 292 Forumite
    G_M wrote: »
    1) That is NOT the nature of a S21 Notice. Else why did many many landlords serve S21s at the start of/early in a tenancy - the so-called 'Sword of Damocles'. The intention with this is to get the 2 month delay out of the way early in the tenancy just in case. It is not a declaration 'that he/her wishes for possession by a fixed date' (sic).

    Many S21s are never acted on (ie tenant does not leave but LL takes no further action).

    2) The statute you refer to (Deregulation Act) only applies to tenancies which commenced after 1/10/15.

    Wording from S21 itself... "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 [F2in writing] stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house"

    I think I said exactly what the statute stated... I think we're going round in circles here over something of a trivial point. At the end of the day, whatever way we want to look at this, the OP will only get his money back by 1) persuading the Landlord to pay him 2) going to court and arguing his case.

    I have zero intention of continuing this debate, and no doubt you're all vastly more knowledgeable than I on the subject!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.