Student house fallen through

Most of the landlords who would sell up have already done so as a result of s24, the epc debacle, and Renters Reform Bill, although there might be a few stragglers.

The LL is probably selling because Labour are going to make section 21 illegal from day one they are in office. The result many LL's decided to sell up.

It's worth checking if landlord registered deposit and/or provided deposit info as you can easily sue for at least 1-3x the deposit back if not.
You could also small claim for the difference in rent between the properties if they are comparable. A court would likely have sympathy!
Glad you've found somewhere!

Try the letting agents ombudsman, they were very helpful when I used them for a similar issue.

Did the landlord register the deposit within 30 days of receipt with a registered protection agency?

Thank goodness they’ve got somewhere. It’s all a huge pain, but at least they’ve got a place, you must’ve been so worried.

I think we are in agreement. My point was that a poster said they had a tenancy. My point is that it is not a tenancy until the tenant has moved in. Up until that point it is a contract and all the usual contractual remedies for breach of contract are available. That includes damages, SP (unlikely as the ll will no longer be the owner) etc.

I'm sorry but you still are not right. In that case the tenancy started when he moved in. The landlord tried to argue he wasn't a tenant but a licensee. There was no signed tenancy agreement. Hence para 16.

I'm this case there is a signed tenancy agreement therefore the parties have entered into a tenancy with a future start date. Like all contracts it can only be terminated in the ways provided for by the tenancy agreement itself lest the landlord be in breach of contract.
If they secure an injunction (for specific performance to allow entry on start date) they'll be assured tenants too with all the protection of the Housing Act 1988.

Ignore the poster who says no rights because that's wrong.

Happened to my Dd a few years back, we picked her up after first year in halls and she said she'd show us where her and her friends would be moving to in the September, when we got there spotted the SOLD! sign out the front and she called the EA in a panic, they couldn't have cared less and just said don't worry we've got loads of other places! All turned out fine in the end, good luck OP!

Yes, paragraph 16 is very clear. The tenancy commenced the day the tenant moved in. It's basic housing law and fully supports my position that there was no tenancy until he moved into the property. There was a contract from the point the tenancy agreement was signed by both parties. The remedy lays in breach of contract.

Most student tenancies are AST for the length of the year or academic year, so the rules around section 21s do not apply- During an AST you can only give notice if there is a break clause.

There won't be a break clause before the tenancy starts- I mean you could put one in but it would be very, very unusual.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/changes_to_your_move_in_date This is about delaying the move in date, but it does suggest this is breach of contract.

Have you read the full judgment of Lynch v Kirby, because it does not say what you think it says.
That was about intention to create a tenancy as opposed to a licence where exclusive occupation was relevant.

Here the parties have agreed to enter into an Assured shorthold fixed term tenancy and the landlord has agreed to give them exclusive possession.

Now as a matter of fact, you might argue it isn't actually "assured" because they aren't occupying as their only or main home thus not fulfilling the tenant condition giving their contract the cloak of security afforded by the Housing Act 1988 but that doesn't mean the landlord gets to say actually I've changed my mind with no ramifications.

Hopefully the OP will have had some decent legal advice by now.

No I am saying selling is the statutory right, regardless of whether or not there is a break clause in the AST.

A break clause isn’t a statutory right.

It isn’t a “proprietary right” at all per a later poster as proprietary rights relate to intellectual property, not the property rights or their derived statutory rights which allow landlords to sell their leased properties if certain conditions are met.

If your son and friends haven't yet been to see the student union housing person they need to do so. There's likely to be a solicitor working with the union who knows their way around this sort of issue. There's probably also a list of available accommodation held by the union too.

The case is an appeal court case Lynch v Kirby. Have a look. The judgment is very clear, it found for the tenant, agreeing that the tenancy had commenced on the day occupation commences, the 20th February 1997, giving him a fully assured tenancy.

If you look at my post and read it properly you will see I state it is a contract. All the usual remedies are available for a breach of contract.

It is a contract. It is not a tenancy until the person moves in.

A landlord can sell a property whenever they like (a proprietary not statutory right) but unless they have lawfully determined any tenancy agreement, the property is sold with tenants in situ and the new owner becomes the landlord.

So in this case if there is no break clause the landlord must give them access at the start of term. The tenancy cannot be terminated before the expiry of the fixed term. The tenant's contractual right is enforceable by injunction. Alternatively the tenants can sue for damages for the landlords breach to recover additional expenses arising from the breach.

Proper legal advice will see you good...

Are you saying that a break clause is a statutory right in a Tenancy Agreement?
Its not