To not move out of rented house until I'm ready?

[longtermsinglemummy]

I have rented my current home for 5 years. I've looked after it as if it were my own and we've been really happy here. The landlord lives abroad.

In April I had a phone call from the letting agents asking for the property to be valued as the landlord was looking into selling it (huge shock as you can imagine). To cut a long story short he did decide to sell the property and we were given 2 months notice on 21st May, which was then extended by another 2 months expiring on September 22nd as it was still unsold.

In this period I have complied with their wishes. I have had people view the property (which was galling as it feels like our home), and then a mortgage valuation and survey once the house was sold (they only told us it was sold at the end of July). Since then we have looked at so many houses both online and in person but there were none that we really liked or that were suitable for us. I also have legacy credit issues which have stood in our way.

I have finally found a house that we like, and they will have us

But am I being unreasonable in saying we are not able to move out by the 22nd? This date would put so much pressure on me as I couldn't get my head around moving until we had somewhere to move to, so still have loads to do. There is no chain, the buyers aren't selling their house and my landlord is abroad and has a home there. I also have to get my daughter back to university which wipes out one weekend. My ideal scenario would be to vacate the house on Monday October 10th, 2.5 weeks after my notice runs out.

I just feel that I have been a really good tenant over the years, I have been compliant during this horrible shitty period when I could have been obstructive had I chosen to be. The letting agents are saying it has to be Sept 22nd and it's not possible to go past this date, contracts have been drawn up etc.

Surely another 2.5 weeks couldn't be that much of an issue?

It's not actually sold. An offer has been accepted. You need to be out before they exchange as, as said upthread the sale won't go through without vacant possession. You've had ages, you're just being a twat now. Why fuck everybody about needlessly? You've loads of time, you've somewhere to go, just fucking go.

Totally this. No excuses, you've had plenty of notice, OK the extra two months weren't deliberately given, but stop being stupid. It feels like your home, but it's not your house. You're risking the ll's
sale and behaving like a petulant child. Yo should have gone by the first date given.

I hope if you do delay moving out that the letting agancy does the decent thing and contacts your new landlord to let him know what you did. You may struggle to ever rent again in the same area!

With regards to allowing viewings to take place during the notice period, in the standard AST recommended by the Government there is a clause that permits access for the purposes of selling or re-letting the property.

If this clause is contained in the AST and was accepted by the tenant when they signed the AST then the LL has every right to expect the tenant to allow viewings as permitted under the clause.

A tenant is not being kind or helpful by allowing said viewings, they are merely complying with their legal obligations due to the fact that they accepted those conditions when they signed the AST.

Am staggered at the comments saying she's been paying his mortgage for him. How do you know he has a mortgage I don't on any of my properties they are mortgage free, my tenants rent their homes they don't pay my mortgage ffs. There is no one doing anyone a favour here it's a business transaction and the only victim here is the buyer who has trusted the ll and the OP to stick to their word and have vacant possession.

But the buyer is a victim of the landlord who decided it was more important to get 2 additional months rent than ensure the property was sold with vacant possession.

Persian It is a standard clause but it isn't an enforceable one. Many people will, as you've said, comply with the clause because it's in their contract - but no action can be taken if they don't, because the clause contradicts their right to peaceful enjoyment of their home. That is why it is fairly common for landlords to offer a rent reduction in exchange for viewings.

It doesn't make it any more binding that the Government include it in their sample contract. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a contract without it, but it's still not valid. It's simply easier to include it, just because most people will allow it.

AnchorDownDeepBreath has that been tried in the courts at all?.

Or can you cite a reference for that?.

I still don't understand why anyone would want to pay half a month's extra rent if they have another place to go. Why pay double? It doesn't make sense.

YABVU but it's clear you don't care despite everyone telling you that!

It's not your house and you've had 4 months!!

But feel free to ignore everyone, have the landlord go to court, get lumped with the charges, potentially even higher charges if the sale falls through as a result, have even worse credit then you have now and potentially lose your new home when your landlord contacts them to withdraw his reference.

All for the sake of not wanting to move a bit faster!

Well aint you a fucking peach?

Whereas the OP (and others endorsing her original view) planning on completely stuffing up the landlord's chance of selling their property is behaving well? It's outrageous.

And of course many people can't afford to get on the housing ladder nowadays. Surely that's all the more reason to behave decently as a tenant, rather than inconveniencing an otherwise decent landlord to such an extent that there are even fewer of them willing to let their properties. Who suffers then?

We were the buyers in a similar scenario. We gave the tenants an extra month at our cost because we put all our stuff in storage and rented for a month. Our solicitor was concerned enough that he added a clause that the vendor would be liable for all our costs after the month was up. Our solicitor would not let completion happen without vacant possession.

It caused us a huge amount of stress because we didn't know if the family renting would actually leave and allow completion to go through.

no action can be taken if they don't, because the clause contradicts their right to peaceful enjoyment of their home
As far as I am aware it does not contradict the right to peaceful enjoyment as long as the clause was included in the AST and signed by the tenant and LL.

If you have a contradicting piece of legislation or a relevant piece of case law then I am ready to be proven wrong.

What are your legal qualifications out of interest?

As far as I am aware it does not contradict the right to peaceful enjoyment as long as the clause was included in the AST and signed by the tenant and LL

It does. Quiet enjoyment has been used to override may clauses. Its the big hammer.

It does. Quiet enjoyment has been used to override may clauses. Its the big hammer
Do you have any case law to back up the use of "quiet enjoyment" to override a viewing clause?

There are a huge number of cases on quiet enjoyment. The residential cases are at the more extreme end of the spectrum as they tend to be reported as criminal cases. There aren't reports of the normal district court proceedings where most will be decided.

Recently there is the case of Timothy Taylor led v Mayfair development corporation [2016] EWHC 1065 which gives an idea of the clauses set out in the lease and the additional factors the court took into account in deciding that the claimant could get an injunction to prohibit the redevelopment of the building in which he had a gallery.

Most tenants agree to the viewing clause because they think they have to, and because they want a reference and worry about deposits and finding somewhere else to live.

If that issue went before the court on its own, the court would look at the impact on the tenant (how much notice of each viewing, were they arranged at the tenants convenience, rent rebates etc) in deciding whether he landlords covenant to allow the tenants quiet enjoyment was breached.

Unicornsarelovely That relates to building works and an art gallery but have you any case law or instances of what we're debating that's the clause that permits a LL to show the property to other prospective tenants or buyers in a given time period before the rental agreement is up?.

No, because as I said quite clearly in my post, those cases only tend to be reported where there is criminal behaviour on the part of the landlord.

In that case, albeit it is commercial property, the tenant managed to get an injunction preventing works when the only thing on his side was a covenant of quiet enjoyment and the lease clauses were against him. It matters.

It's not a case I would like to argue on behalf of a landlord in front of a district judge, and I would be advising that it would not be worth pursuing, when the section 21 route is much easier and more straightforward.

justaboy I refused viewings recently following an open day and two other viewings. I was getting constantly harassed and my eldest two DC were doing A levels and GCSEs, plus my youngest has autism.

I felt that the landlord was affecting my family life and was prepared to attest this in court.

You are going to end up costing your landlord legal fees dealing with this. And the sale could fall through. It's all very well you saying that they are keen to have it, but they are keen to have it empty of tenants and when that isn't the case they may well pull out. I certainly would. Also just because they aren't selling their old house doesn't mean they don't have plans for the house you are in. For all you know they may have relatives needing to stay in it or they may have builders booked to come and do work.

So yes you are being very very very very unreasonable to threaten to stay if they have said they need you out and given you (more than) the legal notice period.

ATEOTD, if a landlord wants to sell a property vacant, then s/he needs to ensure it's vacant before they accept an offer. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for greedy landlords who are prepared to risk a sale falling through because their tenants refuse to leave - just for the sake of a few months' rent.

I'm landlord and would never expect my tenants to tolerate strangers traipsing round their home.

ATEOTD, if a landlord wants to sell a property vacant, then s/he needs to ensure it's vacant before they accept an offer. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for greedy landlords who are prepared to risk a sale falling through because their tenants refuse to leave - just for the sake of a few months' rent.

I'm landlord and would never expect my tenants to tolerate strangers traipsing round their home.

Sorry for double post, Internet playing up due to storms ...

I think this is unreasonable. It feels like your home but legally it's not

Of course it's your home if you rent it, or do you seriously think everyone who rents is homeless? It is her home. Unfortunately it isn't her house.

OP I've been in a similar situation when the house I was renting was put up for sale. It is completely shitty. Whilst my LL was able to request all sorts of information about me, I was not able to request similar about her. This meant I didn't know that financially she was in a very precarious situation and might have to sell at any time. The way tenants are treated and viewed in England is shitty.

That said, pissing your LL off now will not solve this. As PP have pointed out, they need vacant possession to exchange contracts. It pays to play nicely. I got a rent reduction because I didn't have quiet enjoyment. It's not whether there are 3 people a day looking a round or 1 person a month - it's repeated calls from estate agents whilst you're at work, wheedling to be allowed to show people around at 10 minutes notice because "they're only here today and they've only just seen this place advertised". Well that's their fucking problem, it's been advertised on the internet for weeks.

As soon as I knew the place was for sale I started packing. I hoard cardboard boxes and always have them ready - that's the reality of renting, never quite truly being settled because you know that at any time you could be given notice and that if you are, there are enough people out there who'll say "oh but it isn't your home".

Good luck OP - but if I were you I'd try to stump up the cash for professional movers. They'll get everything packed up for you double quick. If you can afford good ones, they're ace. And get out by the 22nd.

1) why imagine it would be spite, and not the simple fact that a person paying to rent a home might not want endless strangers traipsing through that home when they aren't there (or even when they are)? Would you like to simply open your home for people to wander about in?

As I said, I don't know what the law is here.

I am from the US, and where I lived, if it was in the lease, you had to accommodate it.

And I did. I had a good relationship with my LLs. Did people come traipsing through my place? No. They walked through respectfully, escorted. I was a tenant for 12 years and changed places multiple times. it's just part of renting.

What's unreasonable, in my opinion, is to expect an LL to take a multiple month rental hit just so this doesn't happen.

if you want to charge an LL for this and can, that's fine. Go right ahead.