Tenants won’t move out…how does this work?

[SisforSarah]

Explain to me how this works please. Tenants moved in 2 years ago, it was a long let. The landlord served notice over 6 months ago. They can’t find anywhere else to rent or buy (they are in a particularly busy property hotspot) so are refusing to leave indefinitely, and apparently that’s legal. So the landlord can’t sell his property and benefit from the inflated prices, or move back into his house. How long can they stay there? I’m a bit dumbstruck at this? What would happen if the landlord needed the money from the house sale for something else? Would he be forced to remortgage? I am neither this tenant or landlord or a tenant or landlord of any other property.

@DancesWithTortoises

It sucks that some tenants aren't decent people - that's the problem.

A LL lets a house to someone with good references who seem like decent people. A few years down the line LL needs the house back and these immoral people break the agreement.

The LL's revenge comes in the reference when a new potential LL asks for one.

It sucks that some landlords aren't decent people too - it goes both ways

A LL lets a house to someone with good references who seem like decent people. A few years down the line LL needs the house back and these immoral people break the agreement.

You seem confused about what a tenancy agreement is. It’s a legal document. It’s isn’t a handshake and a favour from the LL. the landlord wanting the property back doesn’t end the tenancy. That’s not how it works. The tenancy lasts as long as the tenant is paying rent until they either leave of their own accord or are evicted legally. There is nothing immoral about remaining in your home until either you have found alternative accommodation (it would be a form of self harm to make yourself homeless voluntarily) or until you legally have to leave. If a landlord doesn’t understand the terms of the contact they shouldn’t be entering it.

@Clocktopus

Presumably they're still paying the rent so the landlord isn't out of pocket in that regard? Legally the tenancy only ends when the keys are handed over so to force them out the landlord would need to make an application to the courts to have them evicted. In the meantime they still have the right to quiet enjoyment and to refuse access except in an emergency.

An amicable, temporary solution might be for the landlord to discuss a rolling month-to-month tenancy with them while they look for a new property. Is there a reason they can't find anywhere?

Actually with regard to access they can't refuse any access as long as reasonable notice is given (emergency or no emergency)

@thecatneuterer

Someone mentioned insurance. LL insurance (for non payment of rent/eviction) is extremely difficult to get and is only offered on the most gold-plated tenants with very high credit scores and who are earning a huge multiple of the monthly rent. Really the only tenants you could get it for are the sort of tenants you would be unlikely to need it for.

The last house I rented out none of the applicants would have been eligible for me to get insurance on them.

This rubbish, we have tenants only earning minimum wage, we got rental insurance for every property

Actually with regard to access they can't refuse any access as long as reasonable notice is given (emergency or no emergency)

They can refuse access. The tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment and that includes sole access to the property at the exclusion of all others. No matter how much notice is given, the landlord cannot enter without permission except in an emergency.

@Clocktopus

Actually with regard to access they can't refuse any access as long as reasonable notice is given (emergency or no emergency)

They can refuse access. The tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment and that includes sole access to the property at the exclusion of all others. No matter how much notice is given, the landlord cannot enter without permission except in an emergency.

Yep. If gas/electricity safety checks are refused, the LL can apply for the courts to order access if necessary. They can't just steam ahead with checks without doing that though.

The landlord also can't do anything to try and manipulate access, for example by showing up at the door unannounced, in the hope that catching the tenants on the back foot will make them more likely to let him/her in because that's harassment.

There is nothing immoral about remaining in your home until either you have found alternative accommodation (it would be a form of self harm to make yourself homeless voluntarily) or until you legally have to leave. If a landlord doesn’t understand the terms of the contact they shouldn’t be entering it.

I'm aware of what the law is but that doesn't make it morally right. But I understand changes are on the way. Of course it's immoral to remain in someone else's property after your lease ends and you've been asked to leave because the owner wants it back.

Legally you can stay but you'd be a pretty shabby individual to break your word given at the beginning of the contract, wouldn't you?

Many tenancies are for a fixed term for various reasons. If you agree to a 3 year tenancy then stay beyond the end then you are a pretty dishonest person, I'd say.

We have a friend who has been trying to get his house back for over a year, having returned from overseas. The tenants knew the score but they just won't shift. They have also caused damage to the property but at least their sacrificed deposit will pay for that. They are very near the end of the road and the bailiffs will be on speed dial the moment it's gone through court.

"shabby individual" - so we should determine people's worth and morals based on the circumstances they find themselves in and acess to money/new property/ignore all the potential family circumstances that may mean they are unable to upsticks at the landlord's exact convenience and timeline?

Weird. The onus is the other way round entirely. Fool of a landlord that didnt' realise they would be inserting themselves into quite complicated personal circumstances of people (aka tenants). That the timeline is at the mercy of life (complicated for lots of people) that tend not to have spare properties at their disposal to jump into.

I think it is immensely arrogant to enter into becoming a landlord as an investment vehicle without understanding the that the risks/returns are not remotely connected to "morals" or what is "right".

In fact, it's quite a funny comment and shows lack of awareness that the Tenancy Agreement the landlord signed conveys rights to the tenant and not purely a golden ticket to risk free investing they seem to think...

The tenant has rights and it's their home and landlord is unable to regain possession until the court dermines (as per eviction etc). It's quite a risky investment, all investments are if they offer any kind of return. No-one cares that a landlord thinks someone doesn't "jump" when they say. It's the risk of becoming a landlord. Unless you think it genuinely was just a money printing machine that you cleverly stumbled across and everyone else are fools for not doing similar. No-one should become a landlord unless they can swallow the losses as well as the gains. (That's what any investment says - don't invest what you can't afford to lose etc...)

@SisforSarah

Explain to me how this works please. Tenants moved in 2 years ago, it was a long let. The landlord served notice over 6 months ago. They can’t find anywhere else to rent or buy (they are in a particularly busy property hotspot) so are refusing to leave indefinitely, and apparently that’s legal. So the landlord can’t sell his property and benefit from the inflated prices, or move back into his house. How long can they stay there? I’m a bit dumbstruck at this? What would happen if the landlord needed the money from the house sale for something else? Would he be forced to remortgage? I am neither this tenant or landlord or a tenant or landlord of any other property.

I have not read the thread so it's just the op I'm replying to.

It could be that they can't find /afford anywhere. If they are not working or get some help with the rent it may be that no one is willing to take them on. The council would have told them not to leave the property until they get evicted by bailiffs if they do not do this the council will say they made themselves homeless and will not help them. So they don't have a choice.

"shabby individual" - so we should determine people's worth and morals based on the circumstances they find themselves in and acess to money/new property/ignore all the potential family circumstances that may mean they are unable to upsticks at the landlord's exact convenience and timeline?

If you know the date 3 years in advance you would have to be very stupid not to expect to leave on the promised date. I certainly determine people's worth by how trustworthy they are. Doesn't everyone?

Fool of a landlord that didnt' realise they would be inserting themselves into quite complicated personal circumstances of people (aka tenants). That the timeline is at the mercy of life (complicated for lots of people) that tend not to have spare properties at their disposal to jump into.

A fool to expect people to keep their word? I guess so. You assume most people are decent, though, then you find some who aren't who screw you over.

I think it is immensely arrogant to enter into becoming a landlord as an investment vehicle without understanding the that the risks/returns are not remotely connected to "morals" or what is "right".

But not quite as arrogant as it is to ignore the needs of the person who actually owns the house and wants it back to live in after the agreed term elapses. Now that is arrogant.

In fact, it's quite a funny comment and shows lack of awareness that the Tenancy Agreement the landlord signed conveys rights to the tenant and not purely a golden ticket to risk free investing they seem to think...

Or maybe the person let out the house at below market rent on condition the tenant leave by a certain date.

No-one should become a landlord unless they can swallow the losses as well as the gains. (That's what any investment says - don't invest what you can't afford to lose etc...)

Quite true. That's what happens when you expect people to keep their word, I guess.

We rent out our old family home. Initially it was to pay towards nursing home fees. We've had some lovely tenants and only one lot of scumbags but we were able to get a CCJ for all the damage they caused. Their marriage was breaking up and they took it out on the house and the neighbours.

Current tenant is lovely but when she moves on we'll sell unless there's a change in the law to make it more fair to landllords.

This is from Shelter's website
At the end of a fixed term'

When your contract ends you have different options.

If you want to stay, you can either:

agree a new fixed term contract – your rent may increase

stay in your home without signing a new contract – your agreement becomes periodic and rolls on monthly at the same rent

If you want to leave, you can usually end your tenancy by moving out and returning the keys by the end of the fixed term. Check your contract to see if you have to give notice that you're leaving.

If you're a joint tenant you need to discuss what you want to do with the other tenants
Eviction

You don't have to leave just because the landlord tells you to or because your fixed term contract has ended.

The landlord must follow eviction procedures unless you agree to go.
They must give you notice and then get a court order to evict you.
I repeat; THAT IS THE LAW. The tenancy doesn't end because the fixed term ends.

Some LL's seem to think they're bestowing a kind and generous favour by allowing someone else to live in their property, regardless of the fact they're getting money in return for that.

I'd indeed be a 'shabby individual' if I chose to make my family homeless because I was more worried about what the person who's mortgage I'm paying thought of me than the welfare of my own child. I don't particularly want to go through court, bailiffs and everything that goes with that, it's not really a goal of mine to be honest, but it's the system that both tenants and landlords sign into when a tenancy agreement is signed, many tenants don't have a choice except homelessness, all landlords have a choice to accept the terms and rent out or to not do so.
You rent your property out, this is what can happen, if you're unaware, or disagree with the terms set out in law then maybe you should rethink your choice.

Indeed, @Maverickess .

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 makes it plain what landlords should do to legally evict a tenant. It is still in existence and landlords are prosecuted under the provisions of that Act.

@LoislovesStewie

At the end of a fixed term'

When your contract ends you have different options.

If you want to stay, you can either:

agree a new fixed term contract – your rent may increase

stay in your home without signing a new contract – your agreement becomes periodic and rolls on monthly at the same rent"

Interesting, didn't know this (neither a ll nor a tenant). So if a LL wanted to increase rent at the end of fixed term contract they just couldnt, because why would any tenant agree if they could just not sign but roll on a monthly basis until being evicted which apparently takes ages?

How about if tenant doesn't pay rent at all, does it still take a year to get to the bailiff stage?

I'm aware of what the law is but that doesn't make it morally right. But I understand changes are on the way. Of course it's immoral to remain in someone else's property after your lease ends and you've been asked to leave because the owner wants it back.

Legally you can stay but you'd be a pretty shabby individual to break your word given at the beginning of the contract, wouldn't you?

You clearly read none of my post.

It’s very clear that there are people who don’t consider housing a human need for people who rent. Almost as if a home is a luxury item renters choose to have and should stop being so bloody greedy and hand it over when someone else wants it. I defy anyone faced with the option of carrying your children out into the street with literally nowhere to go to sleep that night not to try and cling onto their roof for as long as takes to avoid that happening. You’re lying if you say you wouldn’t.

@KaptanKatanga How long it takes depends on lots of factors but mostly how quickly the courts can deal with the request for a possession order and then how quickly a bailiff can be instructed; that varies depending on where in the country the property is situated.
I would add that the Government have changed the notice period due to Covid several times. If anyone has received a notice recently then please check the rules with Shelter or a Law Centre of their Local Authority. And the law in Scotland is always different on lots of things.
I am not giving specific advice here but just trying to get landlords and others to realize that we have laws in respect of landlords and tenants, and it is best to abide by them.

And a note to tenants, please pay rent, not paying might cause lots of issues for you.

The landlord must follow eviction procedures unless you agree to go.
They must give you notice and then get a court order to evict you.
I repeat; THAT IS THE LAW. The tenancy doesn't end because the fixed term ends.

Re the above, the tenancy would end when the fixed term ended IF the LL gave the contracted notice. If not the tenant moves onto a rolling contract, which is the case whether you had a longer fixed term of say 4 years or the standard 6/12 month AST. Standard notice periods in non Covid times are 1 month given by the tenant and 2 months by the landlord. Personally I would try to give my tenants longer than 2 months notice, but legally it's 2 months.

It is not usual or acceptable for tenants to refuse to move out after the 2 months notice period and to therefore force the LL to go through the eviction process. Fair enough If the landlord has been crap or is breaking the tenancy agreement but otherwise imo it's immoral.

I've luckily not had this with any of my tenants. If I did have problem tenants I would pass that info to all of the local letting agents and landlords and would state the facts if asked for a reference.

No, the landlord needs to get a PO because only the PO ends the tenancy. As I keep stating the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act makes that plain. It is the landlords responsibility to obtain a PO.
I've spent well over 25 years telling landlords what action they need to take and really that sums it up. It's not a question of morality but law.

So if a LL wanted to increase rent at the end of fixed term contract they just couldnt, because why would any tenant agree if they could just not sign but roll on a monthly basis until being evicted which apparently takes ages?

"They just could". A landlord can increase the rent on a periodic tenancy. Of course there's restrictions and processes to follow, the landlord can't just hike the rent up to silly money.

@Maverickess

Some LL's seem to think they're bestowing a kind and generous favour by allowing someone else to live in their property, regardless of the fact they're getting money in return for that.

I'd indeed be a 'shabby individual' if I chose to make my family homeless because I was more worried about what the person who's mortgage I'm paying thought of me than the welfare of my own child. I don't particularly want to go through court, bailiffs and everything that goes with that, it's not really a goal of mine to be honest, but it's the system that both tenants and landlords sign into when a tenancy agreement is signed, many tenants don't have a choice except homelessness, all landlords have a choice to accept the terms and rent out or to not do so.
You rent your property out, this is what can happen, if you're unaware, or disagree with the terms set out in law then maybe you should rethink your choice.

Many people on this thread don't get it at all it's not about morals. Or being shabby. Some on this thread have no idea what it's like to have to go eviction route. It's pretty awful. And so is the temporary accommodation that familys get put into. The family do not even know where they are going to sleep that night. People often loose all their furniture and alot of personal things to.

The tenant does not want to go eviction route at all they are forced into it by the council and left with no choice. But some landlords do know this and they are OK with it . They know its the system not the tenants.

Also for People making the assumption that rent is not being paid that would cone under section 8 which is for rent arrears. Section 21 is a no fault eviction.

@LoislovesStewie

So to be clear, you believe that every single tenancy can only be legally ended by the landlord taking the tenants to court? You don't think that a correctly drawn up and signed by both parties tenancy agreement (contract) is legally binding?