Landlord asked me to leave, what compensation to ask for?

[Whooo]

I’m in my 20s and moved to London 5 years ago for work - renting the same apartment since.

My landlord wants to sell the apartment and issued an invalid Section 21 notice. I don’t believe this notice is valid as my deposit isn’t protected, so I mentioned it to my landlord in confusion. I added that I am happy to negotiate as ultimately I don’t want housing stress over my head.

They basically came back with a response to say, they really want vacant possession asap and are really wanting to avoid court. they have asked me if I’m willing to move out this month and essentially help them out so they can sell the property immediately as they need the money from the sale. As a starting offer they have said they will immediately refund the deposit.

I’m willing to engage with this but I am also thinking this isn’t enough. What would you ask for to facilitate this?

• for example, Royal Mail redirection costs
• I work fully from home, and to get my internet switched over will lead to me not having service for 3 days which will impact on my ability to work.
• Costs of moving my furniture/belongings and having to potentially put into storage as most places come furnished

just wanted to get feedback on if there is anything else I have missed, as it’s a stressful situation

On this thread, I think there has been one or maybe two LL criticising the OP and many others (LL and non-LL) supporting the OP and criticising the LL for not following the law.

He’s an idiot for not protecting your deposit. Forget about mail redirection - he needs to pay you at least 3 times your deposit amount, as that is the minimum a court would award.

A cheeky thought, but as he needs the money, is there any chance he would sell the property to you at a reduced price?

So many landlords on Mumsnet giving out deceptive advice.

Being a landlord comes with responsibilities but they just think about benefits only...

The landlord should have a clear contract with a break clause and they should respect that. They can negotiate a shorter time period but this needs to be mutual.

Real estate should not be considered a liquid asset, it is a well known fact.

People saying the minimum a court would award for an unprotected deposit is 3 times are incorrect. The remedy is return of the deposit, plus 1-3 times the deposit - the amount is at the discretion of the court.

Not in the eyes of the law.

Because tenants have rights?
Because it's a pain to adhere to pesky rules that protect both parties?

Some of the replies here are a joke. It's not vindictive to expect landlords to follow the law and to compensate when they don't. Of course OP should get paid for their inconvenience plus multiple breaches of contract, that's literally laid out in the law.

OP, I agree with those saying ask for 3x deposit at least, since this is what you'd get if you took it to court. Their choice which way they want to play it.

And it’s advice like that which was the reason I stopped being a landlord.
and for your information I gave the tenants 6 months notice and their entire deposit back.

the landlord is being reasonable why try and claim more than you left as a deposit. They should t have to take you to court to get back their property that you were essentially borrowing from them.
a friend had to do that and it cost him £25k to get the Tenant out when you add up the lost rental money as well. Even on the day of the eviction neighbours were hounding him saying that had given the tenants the rent money it was only when he explained that they had kept the money that it dawned on they that they had been taken for mugs as well

No, they aren't borrowing it. They're renting it. For the duration of their time there it's their home, which they're legally entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of. It's good you aren't a landlord any more.

If the unprotected deposit fine or whatever is 3x the deposit I would want 2x deposit. The deposit back isn’t a ‘benefit’ for you, you’d get it back anyway!!!

That doesn't mean she shouldn't have checked it was being protected.

Renting property is not the same as borrowing property - if you think it is it's probably best that you are no longer a landlord!

Here's a hint - someone who pays you to enter into a legally binding contract is no more borrowing your home than my boss is borrowing my time.

Don't be daft, you know the difference

LL here - If you have had multiple fixed term tenancies ie. haven't gone onto a rolling periodic tenancy after the initial fixed term expired - the landlord will be liable for up to 3X per tenancy agreement.
It doesn't matter if he pays it back now/or protects it - it's irrelevant. You have a case against him.

Agree you’re likely better to sit tight and follow the process. Take your time finding a new place and claim 3x deposit for his failure to protect.

If you want a quick break, then 4x deposit seems the right counter offer.

Do you like the property?
If yes then offer to buy it. LL needs to sell, you are close to being able to buy. He saves some selling costs, you save moving costs.

Just do what suits you best. If you want thechassle of court and getting 2 x deposit back then do so. But coming to a reasonable agreement seems to be the best way forward. 4 x deposit bit greedy Imho.

It isn’t her job to do that, if the landlord does not know this then he shouldn’t be a landlord.

Cut your nose to spite your face though, isn’t it?

I agree but it is her own interest to have confirmation of the deposit protection.

This. And the point is that he is asking her to leave early, earlier than the fixed term contract.

Absolutely do not agree to this.

The fact your LL didn’t protect your deposit means you can do much better than just get it back (which you should anyway if you’ve paid rent and kept the house undamaged)

Take your time and don’t be pressured.

The onus is on the landlord to protect the deposit and provide the certificate. It doesn't matter how many times the usual suspects repeat their pitiful mantras, the law stands.

I am always happy to see the one or two decent landlords who show up on threads like this and support the tenant who is being treated badly by a scummy landlord, but they are a minority in relation to the 'we're doing you a favour' victim blaming landlord posts.

But we don't know how long the fixed term contract is. OP has just stayed she's been there 5 years iirc

Being a landlord really should be formally regulated. The fact someone is on here moaning they aren’t a LL anymore (sounds like a good thing TBH) because people want to rightly claim against unscrupulous LLs not protecting deposits, and see renting as “borrowing” is completely shameful

Why on earth should the landlord have to pay you off when you've had use of their home for five years?
Stop being a CF and find yourself somewhere new to rent.

But she wasn’t intending to move imminently so she wouldn’t