Tenant wants to change leaving date after giving notice

jimbob3

G_M wrote: »

They gave notice which you accepted.

Yes but is it legally binding or as they have suggested do they have a legal right to stay in the property to the 12th which is the date that they should have asked for according to the AST? I'm interested to know whether their argument has any validity from a legal standpoint?

Pixie5740

jimbob3 wrote: »

Yes but is it legally binding or as they have suggested do they have a legal right to stay in the property to the 12th which is the date that they should have asked for according to the AST? I'm interested to know whether their argument has any validity from a legal standpoint?

I ask again, do you have anything in writing to say that you accept the tenancy ending 22nd August given that 22nd August doesn't align with the tenancy periods?

jimbob3

yes, they asked to terminate on the 22nd and I accepted it, both in writing - I presume you are saying that if it was only agreed verbally it may not be valid?

Pixie5740

You'd have a difficult time proving it if the agreement was only verbal. Now that we have established that you have written evidence of the tenant serving legally binding notice to end the tenancy 22nd August go back to them and tell them that you will be claiming double rent under the Distress for Rent Act. Perhaps also mention that if you incur any costs because the next tenant can't move in you'll sue them for that too.

Red-Squirrel_2

And in future don't sign any new contracts until the last tenants have gone and the keys are in your hand!

Comms69

jimbob3 wrote: »

hi guys looking for some help here:

I have a tenant who is currently on a periodic tenancy (after fixed term finished) ending on the 12th of each month, they gave me notice on July 18th to terminate on Aug 22nd. The AST states "You must give at least four weeks (or a month if you pay rent monthly) notice to end it. This notice must end on the last day of a tenancy period", however I accepted their request for this date as they had given me more than a months notice.

The tenant has now (1 week before they are due to leave) announced that they need more time and that legally they are entitled to stay in the property till 12th Sept as this is the end of their rental period even though they requested an earlier date and I accepted it (both in writing). Is this correct or can I demand that they move out on the 22nd as agreed? Could they argue that they gave invalid notice and need to give it again correctly and end up staying even longer? Normally I would let them stay as long as they want but I have already got another tenant with a signed contract starting Aug 29th so this has me in a difficult position!

sorry if this has already been answered here but I couldn't find a similar question

Jim

Lets look at it another way, you can demand whatever you want but there is absolutely no chance of you getting a court order and bailiffs before the 12th of September.

rexmedorum

Oow that's a bit of a mess! I don't think you're going to get them out and any heavy handed tactics could backfire (they could decide to stay even longer, damage etc).

Also I really wouldn't count on the new tenants being flexible when I have been renting in the past and have moved, usually it was with no more than a few days overlap. Had a landlord told us 2 days in advance that we had to wait an extra week we would have been homeless with nowhere for our stuff to go!

GrumpyDil

Check your landlord insurance policy for legal cover as that might be useful

G_M

jimbob3 wrote: »

Yes but is it legally binding or as they have suggested do they have a legal right to stay in the property to the 12th which is the date that they should have asked for according to the AST? I'm interested to know whether their argument has any validity from a legal standpoint?

As pixie says, yes it's 'legally binding' in so far as a contract is concerned.
But it's not legally enforceable other than by applying to a court, which takes time, hence in practice you cannot legally take possession of the property on the 22nd.

That does not stop you telling them to leave on the 22nd as contractually agreed, nor does it stop you charging double rent (mesne profit)- and other consequential losses eg if the new tenants sue you!


edit: I see you received similar advice 'somewhere else'.

rexmedorum

Eeuh I'm just wondering why nobody is concerned about the new tenants that are potentially about to be homeless?