Strange tenancy issue...

[AB]

Very quickly... a friend of mine has not long signed a 12 month tenancy agreement on a flat.

She has been sent a letter by her landlord telling her she must vacate for 2 weeks whilst they do some refurbishment. She has been told if she doesn't she will be evicted.

Clearly this is not right, I know that much from my minor dealings in the lettings market.

What should she be quoting in terms of landlord and tenant laws?

Cheers

[ianash]

Your friend should read the tenancy agreement. If there is not a specific clause to cover this issue, he can't legally do it. However, if the works are an emergency, then the landlord is responsible for any costs your friend incurrs in finding tempory accomodation.

[BoRED S2upid]

AB said:

What should she be quoting in terms of landlord and tenant laws?

Cheers

What she has signed. Where on that contract does it state she has to leave for work to be done?.

I supose if could have been written in. Although 2 weeks does seem unreasonable and ofcourse shes not going to be paying rent for those 2 weeks is she.

[plg101]

AB said:

Very quickly... a friend of mine has not long signed a 12 month tenancy agreement on a flat.

She has been sent a letter by her landlord telling her she must vacate for 2 weeks whilst they do some refurbishment. She has been told if she doesn't she will be evicted.

Clearly this is not right, I know that much from my minor dealings in the lettings market.

What should she be quoting in terms of landlord and tenant laws?

Cheers

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf

I don't think they can, without providing comparable accommodation, and even then it would be at the tenants discretion to accept. Need a court order to force eviction, and only if they prove she is in breach of teh tenancy.

[Davel]

As said by others, if this is essential work needed for her to safely live there, then the Landlord should offer an alternative place to live, whilst these works are carried out and meet any costs involved, including any storage of her property etc.

In all fairness though, the property should have been in a fit state to let.

What has happened that has suddenly brought this situation about?

The tenant should be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the place that she has signed up to rent.

Edited by Davel on Monday 9th November 13:22

[XMES RUS]

Sounds odd, I bet once she's out she wont get back in.

[pits]

2 weeks eh, sounds like someone has family coming over and doesnt want them to stay at a hotel or in their house, conveniently the landlord has a second house, but it has someone in there, but how to bullst the tenant out for 2 weeks.

[anonymous-user]

Davel said:

As said by others, if this is essential work needed for her to saely live there, then the Landlord should offer an alternative place to live, whilst these works are carried out and meet any costs involved, including any storage of her property etc.

In all fairness though, the property should have been in a fit state to let.

What has happened that has suddenly brought this situation about?

The tenant should be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the place that she has signed up to rent.

I believe this carries a lot of weight in court!

[Neil_H]

pits said:

2 weeks eh, sounds like someone has family coming over and doesnt want them to stay at a hotel or in their house, conveniently the landlord has a second house, but it has someone in there, but how to bullst the tenant out for 2 weeks.

My thoughts exactly.

[pits]

Neil_H said:

pits said:

2 weeks eh, sounds like someone has family coming over and doesnt want them to stay at a hotel or in their house, conveniently the landlord has a second house, but it has someone in there, but how to bullst the tenant out for 2 weeks.

My thoughts exactly.

Seems a bit obvious doesn't it, unless they are removing 90 years of asbestos, taking the ceiling down and putting in new beams upstairs.

My personal approach of this would be to check the contract fully, check there isnt anything in there, also point out, how does he know that repairs are needed when he cant legally enter the property without permission from the tenant.

Stay there for 12 months, then move landlord clearly seems to be an ahole and you may end up with future problems, been there done that with a bad landlord, the only way you can sort them out is by stiffing them someway or another financially.

[Neil_H]

pits said:

Neil_H said:

pits said:

2 weeks eh, sounds like someone has family coming over and doesnt want them to stay at a hotel or in their house, conveniently the landlord has a second house, but it has someone in there, but how to bullst the tenant out for 2 weeks.

My thoughts exactly.

Seems a bit obvious doesn't it, unless they are removing 90 years of asbestos, taking the ceiling down and putting in new beams upstairs.

The only other thing I can think is that they needed to do some work on the place but could afford it, so they've rented it out and have used the tenant's deposit to pay for it.

But then why bother refurbishing a place that has been rented for 12 months? Unless it's something critical such as curing damp etc. Bizarre.