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?

Is it the same situation for holiday rentals?

I agree it's not a good idea to make someone homeless at the drop of a hat - but if, say, I was seconded to Australia for a year & rented my house out on a year's 'contract' (or whatever it is if it's not actually a contract - loose arrangement in legalese), and then came back to find my tenants were refusing to leave, they'd be making me homeless, wouldn't they?

It's anything but a loose arrangement! It's a binding agreement to grant subsidiary rights over a plot of land to another person. If that scenario doesn't fit with your jaunt to Australia then don't enter into such an agreement.

I mean, I'm sure you don't think that laws should be specifically made/altered to suit your own personal whims.

The landlord is a bit powerless with regard to references too - if they give a bad reference it will affect the renters chances of successfully being accepted somewhere else, which means they'd stay in situ longer. Giving a bad reference is shooting themself in the foot in instances like this!

charlestenet your posts are excellent (if unfortunately a bit voice in the wilderness) and remind me of my property law/land law/equity law lectures back in the day.

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.

The OP was given a two month notice four months ago. The landlord could have expected her to leave at the end of that first notice period (or begun the legal process back then if she refused to budge), but presumably it was extended by mutual agreement with the tenant at that time to give her another two months to 'get her head around it'.

The OP knew in April that the property was going to be put up for sale. That is the point she should have started looking for a new property and boxing up her non-essential items. She has instead chosen to put her fingers in her ears and say 'lah lah lah' and pretend it's not happening.

What's the saying? Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. She chose to ignore the situation, and now expects everyone else to be massively inconvenienced whilst she comes to terms with the move.

Dropyoursword- a bad reference will make it hard for the tenant to get a good property, and more likely to end up in one of the grottier places which is harder to let.

Also, unless she's moving totally out of the area, word will get around. As the LL I would certainly make it known to the agent and future LL that I'd been fucked about. Once the new LL knows they've got someone who ignores the contract on their hands, they're more likely to serve notice sooner rather than later- they won't want to risk hanging on to the tenant until they really need the property empty.

For all the hysteria against Landlords, the simple fact is that a tenant is shooting themself in the foot by being a problem tenant. If you need to carry on renting, you're fucking your own chances. The tenant WILL have to move out... So long as the LL serves notice correctly, it will escalate to getting the bailiffs in if the tenant refuses to comply. No nice home, no return of deposit, shit reference.

Btw I totally understand that while the tenant is lawfully in the property, it is their home, and they are protected by the entitlements which go with that. And I have no time for LL who are shit. But equally nothing but contempt for tenants like the OP

No, I don't imagine laws are made to suit my whims, of course - but I don't suppose most people understand that if they are away for a time and rent out their home for a mutually agreed period, the end point of the let is not reliably enforceable and they could potentially never get their property back. I rented a flat once from a woman who'd gone to South Africa to nurse her mother through her final illness. I imagine she'd have been gutted if she'd returned to the UK after her bereavement to find me refusing to move out, and a court potentially supporting my right to stay. I don't imagine she would have been advised by anyone that this was a possibility.

Genuinely curious about short term rental properties. I am currently staying in an Airbnb between selling my old house & buying a new one; could I legally save myself the bother of moving again and squat here instead? This makes all of Airbnb seem a terrifyingly precarious thing for homeowners to engage in.

If there is no chain then don't you think the new owners may bin the same position and be moving from rented? So they should pay an extra months rent? Yanbu to ask but you need to expect to pay a full month's extra rent, not 2.5 weeks worth and expect that they may say no.

All this "I'm paying their mortgage" nonsense. Tenants aren't doing the homeowners a favour. They're paying to live somewhere

Paying to live somewhere and in effect paying the homeowner's mortgage are not mutually exclusive. Buy-to-let mortgages are based on the assumption that the buyer can't buy the place outright but needs a tenant in there otherwise they won't have the funds for the property. Yes, your rent is to pay for living somewhere but don't kid yourself that the buyer can manage without a tenant - most of the time they can't.

BTL was based on the assumption that property prices would keep spiralling upwards and that people could make a killing, and continually fuel the upward spiral. This meant more people unable to get on the housing ladder at all whilst others, with the help of mortgages, owned multiple properties. IMO the whole system sucks.

YABVU you have had 4 months to sort all of this out and get your head around moving and now you want to drag your heels when it's not your house sort all your stuff out and move out by when you where told to.

Ofcourse btl landlords will need rental payments to cover mortgage payments. Or more precisely the interest element of the mortgage payment. And yes, there are unscrupulous and ineffectual landlords out there. However, there is a need for professional, principled landlords to plug the vacuum that the Thatcherite government left in the right to buy scheme reintroduced by Cameron. Our government borrows money to buy many goods and services and no doubt housing stock. Even a housing association won't house people for free. Why should private individuals and companies?

Re squatting - that is now illegal and squatters can be removed fairly rapidly. But a tenant is not and never can be a squatter, occupation was agreed. So the return from australia scenario mentioned is entirely possible . it is a risk you take when you rent out a house.

IMO the whole system sucks.

agreed. But that's not LLs fault.

Special I used the word squat wrongly; I suppose what I mean is that if I'm a very short-term tenant, a la Airbnb, do I still have the rights of a tenant, as occupation was agreed? Could I choose not to move out on the agreed end-date of my let, and potentially be granted permission by a court to stay indefinitely?

I suppose the thing I'm baffled about is why have a notice period or a move-out date at all if it's not enforceable. Would it not be a clearer representation of the situation if property owners were prevented from specifying any conditions under which they might regain occupancy? If legally all you can do is politely suggest to your tenants well in advance that they find somewhere else to live by X date, and you just have to take it on the chin if they refuse?

Gabilan The whole system sucks?. Well what does suck is the fact that we have generation rent people are in what should be short term accommodation that's where you are working in that town or city and you need to be there perhaps for a year or two and that's fine. What is not that fine for is people like the OP who would perhaps be able to pay a mortgage But cannot afford the deposit. OK now years ago you did save for a deposit and that was seen as a good thing. Now your paying a lot for accommodation and cannot get a deposit together and if you can your seeing house price inflation overtaking that but perhaps could manage the mortgage that's were some measure of reform is needed to help those out of AST's and the like.

Must get around to seeing what this help to buy can offer'!

Could I choose not to move out on the agreed end-date of my let, and potentially be granted permission by a court to stay indefinitely?

Bip in my experience the court process is mainly procedural, for most evictions. If the LL has followed the necessary steps, protected the deposit, served the right notice within the correct timeframes, the court will authorise eviction. The court works within certain parameters.

IIRC tenants in extenuating circumstances can request up to 40 (?) more days in the property, but it's not as though the judge says, Oh, you poor love, you get to live there forever! Unless there is some other hell I haven't encountered yet as a landlord

It's threads like this that make me so grateful we were lucky enough to buy before house prices rose so massive. Fuck me some people have no compassion and a sense of greed.
Sorry you're in this predicament OP

I paid 70k in rent over 2.5 years, part of being a landlord is covering vacant periods
The fact that you paid your rent for 2.5 years doesn't make you some kind of hero, what an attitude.

Would love to know the court cases bip refers to where a LL has gone through all the correct procedures, served notice properly and the tenant is told 'ooh ok, you don't want to move out, that's fine, you can live there forever!!!!!'

Oh gosh, I'm not referring to any court cases! Sorry, I have no legal expertise or knowledge at all (as is probably clear!) I was just a bit surprised to learn upthread that serving a tenant notice is just an indication of a landlord's intention to reclaim occupancy of the property, and doesn't mean the tenant legally has to be out by then. If I've understood correctly, it doesn't quite seem to mean what notice means in other contexts!

(I think my view of how this works may have been influenced by the episode of Silicon Valley where Jared lets out his flat temporarily through Airbnb, and then the renter refuses to move out at the agreed time, and is protected by California law to stay for at least a year, so Jared has to live in a cardboard box in someone's garage, incurring vast legal fees to try to get him evicted)

Why are you sorry for the op jools, if she hadn't fucked about since April instead of moving her arse, she wouldn't be in the situation now would she?

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.

is this really the case? (are you a lawyer?) because this makes no sense. It's seems odd that rental law is set up this way, because now in order to have an agreement between two people, you MUST involve the courts to have a normal contract properly dealt with. that's terribly inefficient.

But being odd and inefficient doesn't mean it doesn't happen here.

is this really the case? (are you a lawyer?) because this makes no sense
The person who you quoted this reply to is quoting the law as if she is reading it from the introduction of a land law textbook.

Whilst what she is saying isn't necessarily wrong, she is over-simplifying land law and everything that goes with it.

When I did my LLB (back in 2001 - 2004) one of my land law textbooks ran to about 1,200 pages and even that didn't cover everything there was to know.