landlord is selling the house

LandyAndy

FBaby wrote: »

Yeah, bribe not blackmail indeed. There is no such clause as 'buying our the contract'. It's bribe!

Bribe, to me, suggests a financial inducement to do something illegal or immoral or in some other way dubious. This isn't a bribe.

FBaby

So you would have no issue with a LL agreeing to release a tenant from a fixed term with still 6 months left to go who has absolutely no choice to move due to divorce, where the LL would say to them that they will only agree to do so if they paid 3 months cash up front, even though the tenants have found excellent tenants to replace them immediately because well, the LL can do this, it's just a 'buying out the contract'.

I would have no more respect for such LL than a tenant who asked for money to move out when they should be moving out, even though they don't have to.

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

So you would have no issue with a LL agreeing to release a tenant from a fixed term with still 6 months left to go who has absolutely no choice to move due to divorce, where the LL would say to them that they will only agree to do so if they paid 3 months cash up front, even though the tenants have found excellent tenants to replace them immediately because well, the LL can do this, it's just a 'buying out the contract'.

I would have no more respect for such LL than a tenant who asked for money to move out when they should be moving out, even though they don't have to.

If the tenant wants to end the tenancy early, the landlord does not have to accept, and can impose any conditions to buy their agreement. The same is true if the roles are reversed.


That is and always has been the position for early surrenders.


Your argument seems to be moral, rather than legal, so it's just not something you would do. That's fine, but it's not bribery.

Crashy_Time

I wouldn`t sweat too much, he may be some time in the selling process, unless he is knocking down the prices to get rid?


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy/brexit-slowdown-a-bleak-backdrop-for-uk-shift-towards-higher-rates-idUKKCN1BU278

marliepanda

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I wouldn`t sweat too much, he may be some time in the selling process, unless he is knocking down the prices to get rid?


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy/brexit-slowdown-a-bleak-backdrop-for-uk-shift-towards-higher-rates-idUKKCN1BU278

At least read before you post your diatribe. There is a buyer already.

Red-Squirrel_2

lisylu55 wrote: »

I'm the one that has been instructed by the council that no matter what I have to string it out as long as possible so I 'may' have a chance at getting a house!

Do you need to try and get a council house? Is it the only way you can afford a roof over your head?

If not, and if you can afford to private rent I would avoid the 'hold out for the council' if at all possible. Have you seen these programmes where the follow the bailiffs doing the evictions? You get no warning, you have to be out in an hour, you have to traipse to the housing office and wait around for emergency accommodation and probably end up in a B&B or something equally grim for a while before you get an actual house. It wouldn't be nice for you or your children if there's a way to avoid it and have a smooth move to a new private rented place.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Do you need to try and get a council house? Is it the only way you can afford a roof over your head?

If not, and if you can afford to private rent I would avoid the 'hold out for the council' if at all possible. Have you seen these programmes where the follow the bailiffs doing the evictions? You get no warning, you have to be out in an hour, you have to traipse to the housing office and wait around for emergency accommodation and probably end up in a B&B or something equally grim for a while before you get an actual house. It wouldn't be nice for you or your children if there's a way to avoid it and have a smooth move to a new private rented place.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is no longer the case. What you are seeing are high court enforcement officers, who in the past did not give notice, but subsequently a legal challenge was made and now notification is sent out in advance.


At the start or end of the programme, there is text which says along the lines of: "correct at time of filming".


It should also be noted that very, very few cases are escalated to the high court.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is no longer the case. What you are seeing are high court enforcement officers, who in the past did not give notice, but subsequently a legal challenge was made and now notification is sent out in advance.


At the start or end of the programme, there is text which says along the lines of: "correct at time of filming".


It should also be noted that very, very few cases are escalated to the high court.

Why would that be 'bursting my bubble'?

If that's not the case anymore I am very glad to hear it.

gingercordial

FBaby wrote: »

So you would have no issue with a LL agreeing to release a tenant from a fixed term with still 6 months left to go who has absolutely no choice to move due to divorce, where the LL would say to them that they will only agree to do so if they paid 3 months cash up front, even though the tenants have found excellent tenants to replace them immediately because well, the LL can do this, it's just a 'buying out the contract'.

I would have no more respect for such LL than a tenant who asked for money to move out when they should be moving out, even though they don't have to.

Our last landlords wanted us to move out so they could move back in themselves to get their child into the good local school. We could have asked for a payment to buy out the contract, but we did not as we didn't need the money and were trying to be nice. But it wouldn't have been wrong for us to do so. If we hadn't been able to pull together the deposit and fees to leave quickly, and it was worth it to them to get us out so they could have bills etc put into their name in time for the school application, I see no reason why they shouldn't have contributed to the costs.

In retrospect I almost wish we had as they then tried to appropriate our deposit on spurious grounds (we won the case with the deposit scheme) so clearly us being so accommodating to them didn't count for much, but there you go.

It wouldn't be wrong/immoral/blackmail/bribery for the OP to ask for her costs to be met by the landlord, if it is so important to the landlord that she get out. Quite simply the landlord should have factored costs of removing the tenant (one way or another) into his calculation of the gain on sale of part of his property business.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Why would that be 'bursting my bubble'?

If that's not the case anymore I am very glad to hear it.

It's not, it hasn't been for about two years actually, but these shows are filmed a long time in advance. Usually 2 or 3 series worth in one go.