Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Can I Stay One Or Two More Weeks


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#16 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,516 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:48 AM

If you leave before the fixed term ends there is no need to give any notice.

However, if you stay over, even by one day, a statutory periodic tenancy starts and you can only end that by giving notice to quit. That means, if you pay rent monthly, that you will be committed to at least another month; if you pay weekly then it will be four weeks. The really big snag is that you cannot give notice before the tenancy starts as section 5(5) of the Housing Act 1988 provides that a notice to quit given by a tenant before such a tenancy starts is of no effect. Giving notice on the first day of the periodic tenancy is (probably*) too late and so in effect you are committed to at least two months. If you want to stay for a short period, try and agree a further fixed term up to the date you want to leave, though note that the landlord does not have to agree to grant it. Until you have a clearer idea of when you will be leaving there is not a lot you can do.

*This depends on whether the day of service is included in the notice period and whether you you give notice ending the tenancy on the first or last day of a tenancy period.


so, they issue a S21, properly, but if you overstay you are now on a periodic and have to give effectively 2 months notice.

Surely the S21 makes the new periodic void?...how else could they apply to a court for eviction?

The law is an ass

Either they REALLY want the property back on the date the S21 calls, or they dont.
WARNING

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#17 Damocles

Damocles

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 12:02 PM

Surely the S21 makes the new periodic void?


Absolutely not! That would prejudice tenants. There is much in the HA 1988 that is obscure, but section 5 is crystal clear. When an assured tenancy comes to an end, if the tenant remains in possession a periodic tenancy arises.

...how else could they apply to a court for eviction?


Because of what is provided in section 21 HA 1988.

#18 Bloo Loo

Bloo Loo

    Ripened on the Diversity Vine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,516 posts
  • Location:Essex-the land of Equality
  • About Me:Im Bloo yabba dee yabba die.

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:38 PM

Absolutely not! That would prejudice tenants. There is much in the HA 1988 that is obscure, but section 5 is crystal clear. When an assured tenancy comes to an end, if the tenant remains in possession a periodic tenancy arises.



Because of what is provided in section 21 HA 1988.


stupid law...correct notice before end of tenancy...tenant stays and is on periodic tenancy, yet will still be evicted...so not really a periodic tenancy unless the eviction is 2 months from the start of the periodic.

stupid to call it a periodic when its an uncontracted tenancy, as the periodic notice procedure is different.
WARNING

Your
country is at risk
if you
do not keep up repayments
on a gilt or other loan secured on it





#19 Damocles

Damocles

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:09 AM

stupid law...correct notice before end of tenancy...tenant stays and is on periodic tenancy, yet will still be evicted...so not really a periodic tenancy unless the eviction is 2 months from the start of the periodic.

stupid to call it a periodic when its an uncontracted tenancy, as the periodic notice procedure is different.


I am not sure I follow you here.

Section 5 benefits tenants.

I think part of the problem is that the HA was drafted on the basis that an assured tenancy (i.e. non-shorthold) would be the default with a special procedure needing to be followed to ensure that a tenancy was an assured shorthold tenancy. The position has since been reversed. Even so it has always been the case that an AST is a species of assured tenancy with all the rights that go with that type of tenancy subject to the landlord being able to obtain possession after giving notice. Do you think the position should be that when a fixed term assured tenancy comes to an end the tenant should have no right to continue in occupation?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users