Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site

Tenants' rights after 17 years

Straight answers to factual questions
Forum rules
Direct questions and answers, this room is not for general discussion please
PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142828

Postby PinkDalek » June 1st, 2018, 1:43 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:I'm off to buy removal boxes this weekend I think...


I haven't read the entire thread but you might want to read this regarding your rights:

https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/sec ... -8-notices

Extract only:

How much notice you need to give

A Section 21 notice must always give your tenants at least 2 months’ notice to leave your property.
If it’s a periodic tenancy, you must also let your tenants stay for any additional time covered by their final rent payment.


There's plenty more there but I don't think you've yet said what type of tenancy you hold.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142832

Postby Lootman » June 1st, 2018, 1:48 pm

PinkDalek wrote:Yes, plenty do, but it depends on the quality and nature of the items. You can, for instance, find your nearest Red Cross shop by entering your post code here:

https://www.redcross.org.uk/shop/donati ... rity-shops

Looks like British Heart Foundation will pick up anything - time to start bagging up books

When I used the British Heart folks they were picky, and only took the better stuff.

The MS people, on the other hand, took everything, including the crap.

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142838

Postby PinkDalek » June 1st, 2018, 1:57 pm

Thanks for your reply but Looks like British Heart Foundation will pick up anything - time to start bagging up books were not my words!

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142841

Postby Lootman » June 1st, 2018, 2:02 pm

PinkDalek wrote:Thanks for your reply but Looks like British Heart Foundation will pick up anything - time to start bagging up books were not my words!

Sorry - indentalitis.

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142851

Postby PinkDalek » June 1st, 2018, 2:27 pm

Lootman wrote:Sorry - indentalitis.


Yes it is catching, especially at Polite Discussions.

More generally, I think it often depends not just on the charity but also the local shop concerned. Some seem to take all books, if in reasonable condition, whether hard or soft backs, some are very picky. Others specialise in clothing - the sort of retro stuff that AleisterCrowley may have in his collection. ;)

Others may even accept Fool branded fridge magnets and pens but I'd imagine these are treasured possessions.

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142870

Postby AleisterCrowley » June 1st, 2018, 3:34 pm

I'm hanging on to my TMF memorabilia, as a reminder of the good old days, now we no longer exist in digital form (other than web archives)
Oddly, I managed to 'lose' my TMF "Do you like dogging?*" T-shirt in the Bree Louise at a social
Still have plenty of fridge magnets and pens though

AC

*"Do you Fool around?" actually

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142872

Postby AleisterCrowley » June 1st, 2018, 3:40 pm

PinkDalek wrote:
AleisterCrowley wrote:I'm off to buy removal boxes this weekend I think...


I haven't read the entire thread but you might want to read this regarding your rights:

https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/sec ... -8-notices
'''
There's plenty more there but I don't think you've yet said what type of tenancy you hold.

Bog standard AST, signed 17 years ago, nothing exchanged since

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142900

Postby PinkDalek » June 1st, 2018, 5:11 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:
PinkDalek wrote:...There's plenty more there but I don't think you've yet said what type of tenancy you hold.


Bog standard AST, signed 17 years ago, nothing exchanged since


Others will correct me if I'm wrong but does that make it a "periodic" tenancy? Such that you'll get the two month's notice minimum plus, possibly, a further period of time, if any, in view of the you must also let your tenants stay for any additional time covered by their final rent payment.

Again those with experience can comment but, if it suits you and you find somewhere sooner rather than later, can there not be some form of inducement offered to you by the landlord to leave earlier than the 2 months +?

Maybe they'll be marketing fairly soon, with vacant possession assured, but will they get many unconditional offers with the moving out date so distant? Additonally, if the current condition is on the tired side, as you indicate, they might want to spruce it up a tad, with you and your "junk" not there.

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142907

Postby AleisterCrowley » June 1st, 2018, 6:17 pm

If they want to rent it out it'll take several week's work I guess, as it needs full redecoration and new carpets/sofa/mattress and possibly kitchen units and oven - as you'd expect after 17 years with no work done on it other than basic maintenance (hot water tank/tap replacements)

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142948

Postby PinkDalek » June 1st, 2018, 9:02 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:If they want to rent it out it'll take several week's work I guess, as it needs full redecoration and new carpets/sofa/mattress and possibly kitchen units and oven - as you'd expect after 17 years with no work done on it other than basic maintenance (hot water tank/tap replacements)


Yes, that was my point about a potential inducement to get you out early. If a potential purchaser wants to do it up for the rental market, they may be pleased to get in as soon as possible to do the refurbs etc. It might depend on what tenants are attracted to it, such as professional or students. If the latter and it isn't available until Autumn, then it might be too late for the academic year.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1472 times
Been thanked: 3006 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142994

Postby UncleEbenezer » June 2nd, 2018, 7:20 am

PinkDalek wrote:Others will correct me if I'm wrong but does that make it a "periodic" tenancy? Such that you'll get the two month's notice minimum plus, possibly, a further period of time, if any, in view of the you must also let your tenants stay for any additional time covered by their final rent payment.

You're not wrong, but you're making it sound more confusing than it is.

What you said is usually expressed as two months notice starting from a rental payment day. IOW, if rent is payable today (2nd of the month) then notice given yesterday could give the tenant two months from today, but if that notice were served tomorrow it couldn't take effect until the 2nd of July, so you'd have an extra near-month before the two-month clock starts ticking.

Though even with three months you're under huge time pressure if it comes at a bad time: there's no relief for the tenant who's just had a heart attack, or whose child is getting treated for leukemia, or whose work has posted them abroad for three months, or whose long-planned honeymoon starts the day after notice is received. Just the misery of living life at the mercy of a stranger's whim.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#142996

Postby Lootman » June 2nd, 2018, 7:31 am

UncleEbenezer wrote:What you said is usually expressed as two months notice starting from a rental payment day. IOW, if rent is payable today (2nd of the month) then notice given yesterday could give the tenant two months from today, but if that notice were served tomorrow it couldn't take effect until the 2nd of July, so you'd have an extra near-month before the two-month clock starts ticking.

I was not aware that Notice can only be given in relation to the days when rent is due. I was under the impression that a 2-month notice can be given at any time and that that might result in a partial monthly payment being due.

In fact my usual practice when giving notice was to wait until I had received a new month's rent and then give notice. This was just in case the tenant tried to play the game of "just take my rent from the deposit you are holding", which of course meant that I ended up not holding any deposit.

(This was back when only one month's notice was required).

I did on occasion give a longer period of notice if there were special circumstances that would make it hard for the tenant, e.g. they were on housing benefit and so had fewer options. But normally I would think that 60 days is sufficient to move - any longer and the tenant will probably wait until the end anyway.

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143022

Postby AleisterCrowley » June 2nd, 2018, 10:27 am

Hmm, I pay rent in advance,monthly, round about the 25th of the preceding month.
Going back a few posts- I assume I don't have to accept viewings etc until they have given me formal notice? The letting agent was talking about viewings but the landlord doesn't seem to have decided on action yet

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143026

Postby Lootman » June 2nd, 2018, 10:37 am

AleisterCrowley wrote: I assume I don't have to accept viewings etc until they have given me formal notice? The letting agent was talking about viewings but the landlord doesn't seem to have decided on action yet

I would not assume that. Prospective buyers of the unit are just one special case of the more general category of others who may enter your home. These should always be with notice, typically 24 hours written notice. But you cannot unreasonably refuse a good faith visit.

Such visits may be because of a sale, because of a remortgaging of the property, for routine inspections and necessary maintenance, and as required by utilities and others with a reason to enter.

The exception to giving notice is in an emergency, which this isn't.

But I have sold units with tenants in them, and the tenants were expected to allow viewings by prospective buyers, along with valuers, contractors and other professionals involved with a conveyance. That said, the owner may prefer to get you out first and then sell the unit vacant. Prospective owner occupiers usually get nervous if the home they want to buy has a tenant in there. The general advice is not to market a property until the tenant has actually vacated, if the property is being marketed to owner occupiers.

If on the other hand it is being marketed to other landlords, then it is fine to leave the tenants in there.

modellingman
Lemon Slice
Posts: 621
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:46 pm
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143055

Postby modellingman » June 2nd, 2018, 12:43 pm

AleisterCrowley wrote:Hmm, I pay rent in advance,monthly, round about the 25th of the preceding month.
Going back a few posts- I assume I don't have to accept viewings etc until they have given me formal notice? The letting agent was talking about viewings but the landlord doesn't seem to have decided on action yet


When and if you are required to accept viewings depends entirely on what your tenancy agreement says. As a tenant you benefit from the implied convenant of "quiet enjoyment" (which you can look up on Google). The effect of this is that, unless your tenancy agreement provides for it, you are perfectly within your rights to refuse your landlord or any agent acting on his/her behalf entry to your home.

Typically, tenancy agreements will provide a landlord with right of entry for specified reasons such as inspection, maintenance and viewings provided the landlord gives the tenant a specified amount of notice (typically 24 or 48 hours) in writing. There is often an additional clause which provides for entry without notice to cater for emergency situations.

A landlord's rights of entry are entirely separate from rights that may be held by others such as utility services, council officers and police.

For a definitive answer to your question, you need to consult your tenancy agreement to see a) if it gives the landlord any rights of entry for viewings to prospective tenants/purchasers and b) if it imposes any limitations on when these can take place, such as within the last month of the tenancy.

If there is a limitation such as the last month or last two months of the tenancy, then you will only know that is the case if you have been served with notice to quit. Otherwise, because your tenancy is now periodic, the default case is that the tenancy will continue to run until either party gives the other notice to terminate the tenancy agreement.

Of course, it is up to you how you play matters. You can choose to allow viewings even if you are not obliged to do so. Similarly as I implied around 20 posts back, you can choose (or not) to use the leverage you have as a sitting tenant to try and extend the period of notice beyond the statutory two months period you are entitled to.

If you do choose to assert your position, you may well get some pushback from the landlord/agent. In my experience, as a landlord of nearly 20 years, most tenants and a disappointingly high proportion of landlords and agents are ignorant of what the law actually says. This ignorance allows landlords and particularly the more unscrupulous type of agent to push tenants around. Your only real defence against this is to arm yourself with knowledge of what the law provides. There are plenty of useful sources around (but beware a lot are out of date and don't reflect changes brought in by e.g. the Deregulation Act in 2015). Shelter's website and Landlordlawzone are pretty good sources if you go down this route.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143059

Postby Lootman » June 2nd, 2018, 1:05 pm

modellingman wrote:When and if you are required to accept viewings depends entirely on what your tenancy agreement says. As a tenant you benefit from the implied convenant of "quiet enjoyment" (which you can look up on Google). The effect of this is that, unless your tenancy agreement provides for it, you are perfectly within your rights to refuse your landlord or any agent acting on his/her behalf entry to your home.

Typically, tenancy agreements will provide a landlord with right of entry for specified reasons such as inspection, maintenance and viewings provided the landlord gives the tenant a specified amount of notice (typically 24 or 48 hours) in writing. There is often an additional clause which provides for entry without notice to cater for emergency situations.

I have never seen a lease that does not allow LL entry for selling or remortgaging. And the reason is obvious - that would instantly devalue the property, since it could never be sold or refinanced if a tenant was there. Why would any owner omit such an obvious value-enhancing and legal clause?

I am not saying that no lease exists out there that "forgot" to include those cases. But certainly the boilerplate ASTs I used always had those provisions in them, and I would be quite surprised if that was not the case here.

In any event a sale or remortgage is an entirely reasonable thing to do, and any TT who decided to effectively block that by refusing reasonable entry would probably find themselves getting a notice to quit pronto.

modellingman wrote:If you do choose to assert your position, you may well get some pushback from the landlord/agent.

Indeed, as per my last paragraph above. I think that would be particularly bad advice if in fact the unit is to be sold to a landlord who might otherwise be quite happy to keep the tenant. When I was buying one building there was an existing TT who made things difficult for me. Can you guess who got evicted the day after I completed? I kept all the other TTs who has cooperated.

And I told her not to bother using me as a reference.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1472 times
Been thanked: 3006 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143084

Postby UncleEbenezer » June 2nd, 2018, 3:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
modellingman wrote:When and if you are required to accept viewings depends entirely on what your tenancy agreement says. As a tenant you benefit from the implied convenant of "quiet enjoyment" (which you can look up on Google). The effect of this is that, unless your tenancy agreement provides for it, you are perfectly within your rights to refuse your landlord or any agent acting on his/her behalf entry to your home.

Typically, tenancy agreements will provide a landlord with right of entry for specified reasons such as inspection, maintenance and viewings provided the landlord gives the tenant a specified amount of notice (typically 24 or 48 hours) in writing. There is often an additional clause which provides for entry without notice to cater for emergency situations.


Indeed.

But your second paragraph is essentially implied. The landlord has the right of entry (with reasonable notice) to perform his duties under the terms of the lease, and without notice in an emergency. Any other entry is by the consent of the tenant, and the best a landlord can ask for is that such consent not be unreasonably withheld. HPC will have more detail on that, such as cases where a court has ruled on whether the kind of clause that purports to allow viewings is valid. There are also quite a lot of cases where an informal arrangement has been negotiated, such as a 50% rent reduction over a notice period in return for cooperation over viewings.
I have never seen a lease that does not allow LL entry for selling or remortgaging. And the reason is obvious - that would instantly devalue the property, since it could never be sold or refinanced if a tenant was there. Why would any owner omit such an obvious value-enhancing and legal clause?

Because the owner has the basic decency to respect the tenant's home, of course! Sure, there are landlords who treat their tenants like dirt in the Rachmann/Hoogstraaten tradition: that's why there's always pressure to tighten up the rules a little more (e.g. deposit protection), and most tenants will take the path of least resistance when faced with a bully. But they're happily not the norm any more.

And of course a professional landlord will never evict a good tenant: the only circumstance where it's justified is the special case of an owner's own home. It's just a shame so much of our stock is in the hands of dilettantes who, however well-meaning, might find themselves unable to avoid changes (such as divorce) in their own circumstances affecting their tenants.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18947
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 6683 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143089

Postby Lootman » June 2nd, 2018, 4:04 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote: HPC will have more detail on that, such as cases where a court has ruled on whether the kind of clause that purports to allow viewings is valid.

Again, I am not aware that any court would support a tenant who blindly and belligerently refused an owner the reasonable access necessary to sell or remortgage a property. Nor am I aware of any case where a tenant has actually taken such a drastic step. The selling or remortgaging of a property is a perfectly reasonable thing that is always likely to happen during the course of a tenancy, and I am at a loss to understand why (you appear to) advocate that the tenant should be that bloody-minded and intransigent.

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Lootman wrote:I have never seen a lease that does not allow LL entry for selling or remortgaging. And the reason is obvious - that would instantly devalue the property, since it could never be sold or refinanced if a tenant was there. Why would any owner omit such an obvious value-enhancing and legal clause?

Because the owner has the basic decency to respect the tenant's home, of course!

Part of respecting a tenant's home is to ensure that an expiring mortgage can be refinanced, or to ensure that the building is owned by someone who wants to be a landlord, rather than a current owner who does not. Again, why would you want to try and undermine that?

I was a landlord for over 30 years, owned 15 housing units and had over 100 tenants. In that time I probably entered a tenant's unit (with notice) hundreds of times, always for good cause. You seem to be trying to make out I am a bad landlord for doing that? It's just bizarre.

UncleEbenezer wrote: And of course a professional landlord will never evict a good tenant: the only circumstance where it's justified is the special case of an owner's own home.

Sadly that is far from the "only circumstance". There are a variety of reasons why a tenant may need to be evicted. Probably too many to list here but, in any event and at the end of the day, if I own a housing unit then I have control over who lives there, or whether anyone does. I probably won't evict a good tenant unless I have a good reason. I might evict a less than good tenant for all kinds of reasons.

In reality I gave notice to a number of tenants, usually because they had irked me in some way, or because they could not afford the rent increase, or because I planned another use for the unit, e.g. short-term lets, or because I wanted to remodel, or wanted to sell as in this case. I would not really even call them evictions. It was just the exercise of my option not to renew a lease, in much the same way as tenants often quit.

You appear to harbour a lot of anger towards landlords. Is there something in your life story that is behind all this? And explains the hostility?

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7536 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143091

Postby Dod101 » June 2nd, 2018, 4:18 pm

I have done quite a bit of clearing out over the last few years. The British Heart Foundation in my experience are easily the fussiest with the Salvation Army the least fussy, or from your point of view, the most accommodating. In between are the Red Cross and the others. Not all may do pick ups in your area though. If it is truly junk then the Council recycling/tip is the only answer.

Good luck and think positively!

Dod

tea42
Lemon Slice
Posts: 440
Joined: March 9th, 2017, 8:28 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Tenants' rights after 17 years

#143094

Postby tea42 » June 2nd, 2018, 4:28 pm

Just used the British Heart Foundation. Pickup is not immediate, takes 2 or 3 weeks. Good place ti donate stuff is Sue Ryder Hospice at Nettlebed but you have to take it there. To use Readings tip you have to live in the town.


Return to “Does anyone know?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests