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 upthread, var - exchange of contracts on 26 Sept.

If you buy anything from anyone you help pay their mortgage...or any other bills. It is called commerce.

The tenant does actually have more rights to be in the property than the landlord.

And yes, having the property empty when selling is what you should do with a rental. You cannot be certain that a tenant will leave. Yes, this will mean no income. Has to be factored in.

Yes it would be unreasonable, the buyers will be all set probably got time off work, booked removals, given notice on their property. You have had 4months to sort this. It's prob a condition of the sale/mortgage to have no tenants at time of sale. Box up ur stuff, get a short term let if you can't move into new property yet.

I missed it, sorry.
OP. you may well have been a good tenant but your relationship was with the soon to be ex-owner. You need to be out by the exchange of contracts, not possibly after the sale has completed, otherwise you could cause the whole deal to fall apart.

(Actually, that puts you in a very strong negotiating position with getting some assistance with moving your stuff in lieu of not having the rent reduced when your privacy was being repeatedly invaded.)

If exchange is a mere 3-4 days after the end of the tenancy then the LL probably needs this time to be sure that the inventory is correct, that any minor repairs can be done, and that the house is clean for the new owners. That actually does not give the LL alot of time- and so once again, all the indications are that the LL is actually bending over backwards to try and play right by their tenant.

Notice is just notice - it's giving information as to your intent. There is no contractual breach in ignoring that notice. The tenant's subsidiary legal interest in the land is not terminated by a landlord notifying them of their intention - that happens in court. Not sure what the relevance of asking about hire cars is - it's a completely different legal set up.

what does "notice is just notice" mean? Most things go through in this country without a court order. I am genuinely asking as I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like people are claiming that rental contracts are different from other contracts: they are just "notice" or mere "suggestions" and aren't obligatory until the court steps in. Is that true? are other contracts like that? Or, are they legally binding and the court order is just the legal steps necessary to enforce them?

No, what I'm saying is that the risk works both ways. Tenants who refuse to move at the end of their notice period put their references at risk. But landlords who want to wring every last penny of rent out of a property before selling it also take a risk: that the property will not be vacant on the desired date.

I'd say the risk isn't very balanced, but why did you preface your paragraph with "No"? it sounds like you are agreeing with me: you have to buffer sales with a massive vacancy period because tenants can't be trusted to leave when they are supposed to, even when all i's are dotted and t's crossed. This is coupled with the fact that there is a clear culture (I'd say the OP has significant support here) to stay for reasons as flimsy as having your nails done on moving day.

The other thing to recognize is that if the LL had suspected the tenant would do such a thing, she would have done as you suggested (not extended the original two month notice period), and that wouldn't have been in the tenants best interest (as evidenced by her staying).

Lovely. You are almost certainly right that this is what needs to be done, but it seems like this ensures a loss for all parties and has many other knock on effects mentioned earlier.

Gabilan - actually we HAD to rent out the property not out of choice. We needed to move for work reasons and the property market blew up 2 weeks after we put it on the market. We then had to rent ourselves as without the money out of the flat we couldn't buy a house. So when we finally decided to try and sell so we could buy somewhere ourselves it was nightmare for us. Plus the tenant lost his job and went onto housing benefit which didn't cover the mortgage repayments. We are not all professional landlords in it for the money!!

Been thinking about this today and wondered if you changed the situation slightly people would be so blasé about what a contract means.

Say you work for someone as a PA. You've signed a standard employment contract (where you sell them your labour according to various terms & conditions, and are entitled to withdraw your labour at any point, provided you give an agreed amount of notice). You have worked there 5 years. You're a great employee, and you've always got on very well with your boss. But eventually your life circumstances change (maybe an elderly parent needs long term care; maybe you've gambled away your life savings at the casino), and you need to get your hands on more money than your current job is able to pay. You tell your boss this at the time, so she has time to prepare. Some months later you're offered a lucrative job, and you give more than your contractual notice of resignation. On your last day, you're expecting a card and maybe some flowers, but instead your boss locks you in the building and says you are not at liberty to withdraw your labour just yet. She knows that technically your time and skills and experience may be yours to do with what you choose - but it doesn't feel like that morally, does it? Your service has been an integral part of her life; she has become dependent on what you do, and very fond of you to boot. It's been impossible to find a candidate who can fill your shoes: there's a big skills shortage, and qualified candidates are few and far between. Therefore she doesn't intend to accept your resignation until she is good and ready. Your new employers will just have to wait a bit longer for you to start - why would that be a problem? They've offered you the job, after all. You haven my yet signed a contract with them, but it's pretty much a done deal.

If you refer to your own contract with her, and your right to leave after an agreed notice period, she will say 'But I'm paying you, aren't I? How would you have put food on the table all these years if it hadn't been for me? I'm used to having you around, and after this amount of time and all the money I've paid you I think I have earned the right to keep you at least until your replacement settles in.'

Change the situation and the power dynamic a bit, and it's clear why you shouldn't just run roughshod over contracts!

I was wondering that too chilli. Surely a court order can't be a normal way for a tenancy to end. It should be a last resort.

The only person who seems to benefit from that route is the solicitor.

Bipbip. Very funny and good point. Labour is after all just a commodity.

It's a different kind of set up legally speaking. It's nothing to do with contracts for goods and services. The OP has acquired through her tenancy agreement a legal interest in a parcel of land. The landlord's interest is superior to hers. They run concurrently in regard to the same parcel of land. The OP's interest grants her occupation and quiet enjoyment. The landlord can give notice that he wishes to take over these rights himself but if the OP refuses to honour that intention she is perfectly within her rights to do so until such time as a court decides that her subsidiary interest is terminated. The landlord himself cannot unilaterally terminate it. It's land law and nothing to do with employment or car hire or any other fallacious comparison as often seen on mumsnet.

Surely a court order can't be a normal way for a tenancy to end. It should be a last resort.

Yet councils advise tenants that if they leave before the bailiffs pitch up, they are making themselves homeless. It's simply mad.

Most tenancies end either with the tenant giving notice,or leaving at the section 21 expiry. But yes, those wanting council help are usually told to stay until the bailiffs come, racking up a bill too.

Too many people , council houses sold and not replaced.

And presumably the landlord's solicitor has told him this. Any conveyancer worth their salt would stress the importance of vacant possession. If he chose to ignore the advice he was given for the sake of a couple of minutes months' rent then more fool him.

If you did this to me and jeopardised my sale I would come after you in every which way I could.

I would retract my good reference and replace it with full details of exactly how unreasonable you'd been and you could be damn sure I would pursue you through the courts for every penny I could. Want that on your plate alongside your bad credit and your need to find a future tenancy?

Your selfishness and entitlement and blind disregard for the stress, upset and financial hardship you will cause others is breathtaking. GROW UP. This is NOT your house and you've had more than fair notice. Be honourable and get out in time.

Don't know where minutes came from there!

Sometimes MN attitudes amazes me.
It seems like a lot of people are happy not to fairly follow contracts and await a court order before they would move out.

But woe betide anyone who cancels on a plan such as a night out because they've had a better offer.

Notice of intention to regain your right to possession that you freely signed away with the tenancy agreement is not a contract. If the OP stayed in her property, she would not be breaking any law or any contract.

Of course you are being unreasonable...you have had 4 months notice...so get your shit together and move out when you are supposed to...it's not your house to decide when you can or cannot move out

Wow, so if you rent your house to someone they just get to live there in perpetuity whether you like it or not unless you pay out tons of money in legal fees to get a court to chuck them out? Does the whole system just rely on people having the good manners not to overstay their welcome?

Why would anyone be a landlord if this really is the setup? More puzzlingly, why is my friend who specialises in property law a landlord?

Yes, that is sort of how it is. ...and even if the tenant doesnt pay the rent the landlord still has to go through the legal route. Total cost if it goes to bailiffs is about £2000 . You can get insurance to cover this. The cost is the same regardless so a london ll may only lose a months rent, elsewhere it is four months.

Next time mn screams that tenants have no rights, remember that. And it is as it should be.

Of course a tenant that pays and lives normally isnt one you would want to evict unless you had to sell.

Why be a landlord? There is now no other way to preserve the value of cash except by buying property. And if you keep the place long term it should return 4-6% depending on location, rent value, etc etc etc. Excluding any value increase - outside the south east the big gains there have gone.

In practice of course few cases involve bailiffs and the court ordered eviction is usually a straightforward process. I'm not sure why people think it should be any different to how it is. Making a person homeless is not something that should happen at the drop of a hat and so there needs to be at least nugatory protection (which is what we have given that a court can order eviction purely because the landlord wants it) for the legal interest that the tenant has acquired. The landlord retains the right of ownership even during the period that the tenant has right of possession and quiet enjoyment.

Sorry, right of occupation not right of possession.

*If you did this to me and jeopardised my sale I would come after you in every which way I could.

I would retract my good reference and replace it with full details of exactly how unreasonable you'd been and you could be damn sure I would pursue you through the courts for every penny I could. Want that on your plate alongside your bad credit and your need to find a future tenancy?

Your selfishness and entitlement and blind disregard for the stress, upset and financial hardship you will cause others is breathtaking. GROW UP. This is NOT your house and you've had more than fair notice. Be honourable and get out in time.*

I agree with every word of this!!

Next time someone asks me why I only let to university students, holiday villa aside, I'll show them this thread.