Landlord wants to move back in to property

Okrib

Family and money and favours. Never a good mix.

Have you been paying a full market rent? Did you pay a deposit?

I'm guessing that the family member maybe did you a favour, if they did not and charged you full market rent / full deposit then my answer would be different.

G_M

lisyloo wrote: »

When you rent out your home you need to understand the law and understand that you are making it unavailable to yourself for at least 2 months.
If you might need it at short notice then you shouldn't rent it out.

unless you comply with the requirements of S8 ground 1 by serving the proper warning in writing at the start of the tenancy...........

lisyloo

G_M wrote: »

unless you comply with the requirements of S8 ground 1 by serving the proper warning in writing at the start of the tenancy...........

Yep, I shouldn't have been specific, but the point remains anyone engaging in a contract needs to be aware of their legal obligations and the risks, which wouldn't usually mean being able to move back in whenever you want.

Marvel1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Errr...it's not just "a property they own".

They need to move back into it themselves.

They decided to be a landlord and therefore should have followed it correctly.

ThePants999

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The tenant would be keeping someone out of their own home that they need to live in themselves

Well, not quite. It is currently the tenant's home. They're preventing someone from turning a property that they own into their home.

SuperSaver123

csgohan4 wrote: »

Sadly another thread where family and money shouldn't mix.


The family member was generous to help you out 7 years ago with accommodation, your now thinking about your rights and wanting to stay longer when they need the house back.


Morally you should find somewhere else to live than to bean count and find ways to stay longer. Probably paying sub market rates as well?

Totally agree!

It was their good will to help out for some time, now they need their home back - you should look for something new. Sad and stressing as it may be, that is the reality.

Maybe just negotiate some extra time if you have reasons to do so.

Pixie5740

SuperSaver123 wrote: »

Totally agree!

It was their good will to help out for some time, now they need their home back - you should look for something new. Sad and stressing as it may be, that is the reality.

Maybe just negotiate some extra time if you have reasons to do so.

Where is this notion that the landlord was letting to the OP as a favour or out of goodwill coming from?

The reality is that the OP is a tenant with the rights of a tenant. That happened the moment the landlord started accepting rent in return in exchange for exclusive occupation of the property. Yes it might be inconvenient or even stressful for the landlord to wait out at least the legally required notice period but c'est la vie they have enjoyed 7 years worth of rent after all.

silvercar

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Where is this notion that the landlord was letting to the OP as a favour or out of goodwill coming from?

The reality is that the OP is a tenant with the rights of a tenant. That happened the moment the landlord started accepting rent in return in exchange for exclusive occupation of the property. Yes it might be inconvenient or even stressful for the landlord to wait out at least the legally required notice period but c'est la vie they have enjoyed 7 years worth of rent after all.

But we don't know if it was reduced rent to help out family or full rent. We don't know if it was helping family who for whatever reason couldn't get a private let on the open market and would otherwise be in difficulty.

Pixie5740

silvercar wrote: »

But we don't know if it was reduced rent to help out family or full rent. We don't know if it was helping family who for whatever reason couldn't get a private let on the open market and would otherwise be in difficulty.

I know we don't know so I don't understand why people keep wading in to make out the landlord was doing the OP a favour. Favour or not it does not alter the OP's rights as a tenant.

Yes wanting proper notice which the OP is legally entitled to might sour family relations but I can't imagine giving the OP such little time to move their family will do much for them either.

Mela322

lisyloo wrote: »

Of course the children wouldn't be left on their own, that's not what I was suggesting, but what makes you think the council has accomodation to suit everyone available ? clearly that isn't the case.


Here's a link to show I didn't just make it up !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46137624
see section on Michelle Hunte




I didn't make the point to scaremonger about worse case scenarios.
But my advice was for the OP not to make herself intentionally homeless by agreeing to leave if she may want help from the council.

None of that is accurate about councils housing families. The person in the story is the one that chose to split the family. The story is, her tenancy ended and being on benefits, she struggled to find a property that would accept benefits. The council never stepped in to house this family nor do I believe a council would split a family up. This family eventually found a landlord that would accept them. Her background says she always paid her rent on time.

Lots of comments on here about the op just sucking it up and moving and that she is making it difficult for the landlord to move back in. She has stated she is prepared to move but finding it difficult to move with such short notice. She sounds like a single mum with 3 children. I think expecting 2 months notice is extremely reasonable considering the logistics that go into moving.

Comments about her getting a favour from her relative...well, we don't know how far that goes. A relative had a vacant house and offered it to a family member. Doesn't matter if it was reduced or not. He would have had a vacant house for 7 years or would have had to find a tenant and vet them or hire an agency. I would say they both had an advantage in this situation.

All the op is asking is for the 2 months that the law says she is entitled to. Where is the problem with that?