Tenant wants to change leaving date after giving notice

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tenant wants to change leaving date after giving notice

    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







    #2
    If the tenant gave notice and you accepted it, that's it.
    The tenant has given valid notice because you've agreed to it.

    The tenant can't rescind or change their notice.

    If you hadn't agreed to it, the tenant's notice would have been invalid, because regardless of what the tenancy agreement says, in a periodic contract that arose as a result of the tenant staying beyond the fixed term, they have to give notice of at least a month ending at the end of a rental period.

    If they stay beyond the date they agreed to move out, they are holding over and you are entitled to charge a fee (which isn't rent and mustn't be confused with or referred to as rent) called mesne profit which is charged at double what the rent would have been.

    You need to reach a resolution with the tenant, because evicting them will require a court hearing, and you don't have time before the next tenant wants to move in.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      thanks for giving such a clear answer, it looks like at least I have the law behind me as a negotiating tool then..

      Comment


        #4
        Your best approach would be to tell the tenant that they're wrong, but to get some legal advice (shelter, solicitor, citizens advice) rather than argue the toss with you.
        There's no point getting into a debate about it.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          you are entitled to charge a fee (which isn't rent and mustn't be confused with or referred to as rent) called mesne profit which is charged at double what the rent would have been.
          I believe this must be charged in arrears.
          If charged in advance, then I believe it is considered to be rent and creates a new tenancy.

          Comment


            #6
            In future don't sign on a new person until the old one leaves, (and you have checked the place over for repairs.)

            Carrying on as you have done was bound to end in tears at some point, wasn't it?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MdeB View Post

              I believe this must be charged in arrears.
              If charged in advance, then I believe it is considered to be rent and creates a new tenancy.
              Makes sense (I have some doubts about the whole notion other than as a threat anyway).
              On a practical level, it would probably have to be charged in arrears, if only because it's compensatory.
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #8
                Thanks some good advice there, thankfully the new tenants have been able to delay their moving date

                Comment


                  #9
                  Claim the double rent if they do not leave, and give the excess over expected rent to your new tenant as a goodwill gesture.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It's not double rent.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      It's not double rent.
                      Hmm! Interesting!

                      The Distress For Rent act uses the terms "double the rent" and "double rent" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/G.../19/section/18)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        If you accept the money as rent, you run the risk of creating a tenancy.
                        The 18th century legislation hasn't been updated in line with other legislation and practices.

                        I'd really hate to rely on it in real life (it's something that should probably have been repealed years ago).
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          If you accept the money as rent, you run the risk of creating a tenancy.
                          I agree.

                          (it's something that should probably have been repealed years ago)
                          I don't agree. There needs to be some penalty for tenants failing to comply with their obligations.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                            don't agree. There needs to be some penalty for tenants failing to comply with their obligations.
                            But not something from 1737, it's not fit for purpose today.

                            There needs to be some way for me to get to London, but I'd rather not rely on a horse.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Why is it not fit for purpose? Just because it's old doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Unless you have specific objections or alternatives, then your only problem seems to be that it's old?
                              I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X