Landlord is selling his property and wants an estate agents to take photos

AdrianC

GDB2222 said:

I may be going gah gah but I can remember the 1980s. I’m just saying that there needs to be a balance between the needs of the landlord and tenant, or the end result is higher rents.

Prices vary based on supply and demand.

There does not appear to have been any lack of supply of privately-rented properties over the last decade or so. Recent tax legislation changes have been designed specifically and explicitly TO reduce supply...

greatcrested

Back on page 1 I asked:

* or has he indicated he will want to end the tenancy? Has he served a S21? Exact dates?

It took another 2 pages or so to establish the service date was Sept and expiry was 2 months later. So. Now you know OP: The S21 is invlaid and you can ignore it and stay where you are.

Eventually (in perhaps 3 - 6 months when the courts catch up) the LL will go to court, you will contest the S21 (which should have been 6 months not 2) and the judge will dismiss the LL's claim to end the tenancy. So that's, say, April next year (at earliest). LL will then have to serve a new S21 (which may still be 6 months depending on law at the time). So then another 2 to get to court, so perhaps that's Dec 2021.

Assuming he gets it right the 2nd time (he may not), your tenancy won't end till into 2022.

That's the legal reality. As for the morals, or practical advice on what to do, I leave that discussion to others, but bear in mind this is primarily a consumer oriented wesite hence the attitude by many towards landlords.

For a more LL empathic forum, go over to Landlordzone!

Aranyani

ameliarate said:

This is terrible. The LL wants to sell the property to save his business and, for all you all know, to save jobs., and you are mostly advising the OP to make his life as difficult as possible. Instead of posting on here the OP should be out looking for another property to rent.
Anyone who rents knows well that they don’t own the property and that a LL can decide to sell up and I know that’s their home but advising people to make someone’s life difficult without knowing the LL side is dreadful IMO. 

If you decide to make profiting from providing other people's homes your business, you have to be prepared for the fact that you can't just disrupt their lives for your own benefit.  Nobody should go into it thinking that getting tenants out fast is ever an option.

GDB2222

There are not so many in the auctions these days, but houses with protected tenants used to go for around 50% of VP value. That was obviously a big risk, and it pushed up rents. Some property was simply left empty as a result.

 It would be a mistake to go back to that, unless there is an enormous amount of money poured into public sector housing to replace the private rented sector. Whilst owner occupation is great, the fact is that loads of people simply cannot afford to buy, particularly at today’s prices.

Also, if the private rented sector packs up shop because the risk is increased, they can’t all sell at the same time, obviously. Even so, it would be a terrific drag on the market and put many home owners into negative equity, with a knock on effect on the lenders.

I’m just saying that changes like this need to be thought through carefully, looking at the long term impact on the property market, and introduced gradually. 

TomServo

I'm in a similar situation where the inept and clueless landlord gave me a Section 21 that was invalid for multiple reasons. They advertised the property for sale as unoccupied and I informed the estate agents that this was certainly not the case. They're now selling with a tenant in situ, and below is the response I received from the agent. Hope this helps the OP in some way, andwhat should be reasonably expected of them.

"If you would like to assist us by allowing a block viewing of the property we would be grateful. However as you have a right to quiet enjoyment of your property and therefore this is totally your decision. We will encourage buyers not to disturb you".

I'm a full time carer for someone who has only recently come out of shielding, and going back in due to the current situation. That is the main reason that I won't be allowing strangers to enter my home as any infection no matter how mild, has very serious consequences that result in hospitalisation, at best.

macman

ameliarate said:

This is terrible. The LL wants to sell the property to save his business and, for all you all know, to save jobs., and you are mostly advising the OP to make his life as difficult as possible. Instead of posting on here the OP should be out looking for another property to rent.
Anyone who rents knows well that they don’t own the property and that a LL can decide to sell up and I know that’s their home but advising people to make someone’s life difficult without knowing the LL side is dreadful IMO. 

No, we are merely advising the OP of their legal rights under the current legislation. It's up to them what they decide to do. 

brianposter

macman said:

No, we are merely advising the OP of their legal rights under the current legislation. It's up to them what they decide to do. 

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

AdrianC

brianposter said:

macman said:

No, we are merely advising the OP of their legal rights under the current legislation. It's up to them what they decide to do. 

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

No, integrity is ON TOP OF legal rights.

You seem to be suggesting that it replaces them.

theoretica

Advantage of agreeing is you get to talk to the estate agent - maybe recruit some assistance in finding a place to move to if they also handle rentals as you can point out they won't be able to sell it untenanted until you have found a place.

grumiofoundation

brianposter said:

macman said:

No, we are merely advising the OP of their legal rights under the current legislation. It's up to them what they decide to do. 

Many appear to be suggesting that those legal rights should take precedence over natural integrity. Legal rights are usually intended to be a backstop.

Um legal rights do so pretty good suggestions no?