Leaving tenancy early following notice by Landlord
Discussion
A friend of mine moved into a private rental property in March this year with a minimum 6 month term (to September 14).
They were given notice after 2 months that the landlord wants them out at the end of the 6 month period as the Landlord will be moving back in (there is a clause in the lease about the landlord moving back in).
They have been looking around for places to move into and found somewhere they would like to move to, however the new place will only 'reserve' the new place for a couple of weeks.
They approached the landlord asking to end the tenancy earlier to allow them to move, and have been told that they have to stay until the end of the 6 months.
Is this right? It seems unreasonable to give such a long notice period and effectively prohibit them from actually finding somewhere to move to.
They were given notice after 2 months that the landlord wants them out at the end of the 6 month period as the Landlord will be moving back in (there is a clause in the lease about the landlord moving back in).
They have been looking around for places to move into and found somewhere they would like to move to, however the new place will only 'reserve' the new place for a couple of weeks.
They approached the landlord asking to end the tenancy earlier to allow them to move, and have been told that they have to stay until the end of the 6 months.
Is this right? It seems unreasonable to give such a long notice period and effectively prohibit them from actually finding somewhere to move to.
Or...
The landlord already has a new tenant lined up for September (who has probably agreed to pay more than the current tenants) and so has issued a S.21 eviction notice ensuring that when the current fixed period ends he can obtain vacant possession for the new tenant.
In order to make this sound 'nicer' for the current occupiers he's dressed up as needing to move back in to the property (which if he has a BTL mortgage he isn't permitted to do anyway).
The landlord already has a new tenant lined up for September (who has probably agreed to pay more than the current tenants) and so has issued a S.21 eviction notice ensuring that when the current fixed period ends he can obtain vacant possession for the new tenant.
In order to make this sound 'nicer' for the current occupiers he's dressed up as needing to move back in to the property (which if he has a BTL mortgage he isn't permitted to do anyway).
PurpleMoonlight said:
They don't have to stay living there, they just need to pay the rent due.
There is nothing stopping them renting both simultaneously for a month.
This.There is nothing stopping them renting both simultaneously for a month.
They are on the hook for the rent and utilities until the end date but have no requirement to live there. I've always moved to or from rented with usually a month overlap either side without issue.
Does not sound like a reasonable landlord at all to me, seems like a fairly typical accidental landlord
2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
Regardless of the terminology being used by those posting on this thread what I take from your post is:-
"How dare the Landlord let you a property for 6 months and then want it back at the end of that term. He should let you rent the Property for as long as it suits you and damn his needs and desires. Screw him over and stay put until the court orders you to leave."
You know all the threads about thieving b
d landlords, would you like a clue as to why so many of them are very hard nosed these days?
Tenants were given more than the requisite notice and if the Landlord has let it to them for 6 months then they will have worked their finances out on that basis. Perhaps they are renting away from the area and can't afford to run the two side by side, being tied into their own rental contract.
Seriously I'm trying very hard not to make this sound like a personal attack but jez louise you have so twisted sense of what is right and what is wrong!
"How dare the Landlord let you a property for 6 months and then want it back at the end of that term. He should let you rent the Property for as long as it suits you and damn his needs and desires. Screw him over and stay put until the court orders you to leave."
You know all the threads about thieving b
d landlords, would you like a clue as to why so many of them are very hard nosed these days?Tenants were given more than the requisite notice and if the Landlord has let it to them for 6 months then they will have worked their finances out on that basis. Perhaps they are renting away from the area and can't afford to run the two side by side, being tied into their own rental contract.
Seriously I'm trying very hard not to make this sound like a personal attack but jez louise you have so twisted sense of what is right and what is wrong!
ging84 said:
Does not sound like a reasonable landlord at all to me, seems like a fairly typical accidental landlord
2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
Step down from high horse.2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
Tenants enter 6 month contract
Landlord due to whatever reason decides he needs house back at end of 6 month contracts
Landlord gives as much notice as possible to tenant so they can make plans for moving out at end of 6 months which is what they committed to.
Which bit is unreasonable?
Burgmeister said:
Or...
The landlord already has a new tenant lined up for September (who has probably agreed to pay more than the current tenants) and so has issued a S.21 eviction notice ensuring that when the current fixed period ends he can obtain vacant possession for the new tenant.
In order to make this sound 'nicer' for the current occupiers he's dressed up as needing to move back in to the property (which if he has a BTL mortgage he isn't permitted to do anyway).
It really doesn't matter why the landlord wants them out. He doesn't have to give any reason. They signed a binding contract for six months, and six months only. Yes, that contract includes the option for extension, so long as BOTH sides want it.The landlord already has a new tenant lined up for September (who has probably agreed to pay more than the current tenants) and so has issued a S.21 eviction notice ensuring that when the current fixed period ends he can obtain vacant possession for the new tenant.
In order to make this sound 'nicer' for the current occupiers he's dressed up as needing to move back in to the property (which if he has a BTL mortgage he isn't permitted to do anyway).
On the face of it Tenant is being unreasonable. However we don't know what conversations have been in the past. I certainly remember one house where we'd asked about the landlords intentions to be told it was long term and he did not intend to return to UK. We were then told at the end of the first 6 months (we always do that sir....) that his contract had been extended by another 12 months so we were safe for that long.
Cheers - fking lying bking letting agent.
It's always worth asking the question - you never know it might suit the LL to end immediately, but if not it is tough.
Cheers - f
king lying bking letting agent.It's always worth asking the question - you never know it might suit the LL to end immediately, but if not it is tough.
Vaud said:
Step down from high horse.
Tenants enter 6 month contract
Landlord due to whatever reason decides he needs house back at end of 6 month contracts
Landlord gives as much notice as possible to tenant so they can make plans for moving out at end of 6 months which is what they committed to.
Which bit is unreasonable?
Its not that its unreasonable - but its all part of the faffing about that's involved in renting accommodation at times.Tenants enter 6 month contract
Landlord due to whatever reason decides he needs house back at end of 6 month contracts
Landlord gives as much notice as possible to tenant so they can make plans for moving out at end of 6 months which is what they committed to.
Which bit is unreasonable?
I got SERIOUSLY bored at one point of having to move houses EVERY 12 months on average from around 2002 to 2007 - because the Landlord wanted to sell up.
No problem with been given notice - but don't get all huffy puffy if the tenant then finds a new place ahead of time and wants to move in there.
ging84 said:
Does not sound like a reasonable landlord at all to me, seems like a fairly typical accidental landlord
2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
Simple answer. If they don't like it just buy a house of their own! Should be especially easy if it's two incomes.2 months after letting to a tenant deciding they want to kick them out of their new home after 6 months so they can move back in.
The landlord has no obligation to allow the tenants to end the tenancy early, but at the same time regardless of the clauses of the tenancy the tenants have no requirement to leave their home unless evicted by the court. There is no such thing as a S 21 eviction notice, it's a notice to quit, only after this notice has expired and the tenants remain there can an eviction process begin, which can take months.
If the landlord wants his property back without a fight exactly at the end of the tenancy, then any sensible landlord would agree to an early end to the tenancy.
PurpleMoonlight said:
They don't have to stay living there, they just need to pay the rent due.
There is nothing stopping them renting both simultaneously for a month.
I'd be a little wary of that.... My tenancy has a clause about not leaving the place empty for more than 30 days, last place I rented it was 14 days!There is nothing stopping them renting both simultaneously for a month.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff