How much does my tenant owe me?

[Golaz]

Hi all,

I’ve had a tenant in my flat on for a few years. She’s been on a rolling contract since the first six months. She normally pays rent on the 11th of the month for the month ahead.

I gave her notice on 22nd January, that I would need the flat back by 16th April. (Under a rolling contract I need to give 2 months notice, but I wanted to let her know earlier rather than later, to give her some time to sort something).

On the 4th February she informed me she had found somewhere and would be moving out probably around the middle of February. I followed up today and asked if she had a date. She told me yes- she’s moving out on the 18th and will return on the 20th to clean the place.

How much rent does she owe me? She’s already paid until the 11th. She seems to think she only needs to pay for an extra week until the 18th , but in the rolling contract she’s supposed to give me one months notice so I feel like she should pay until the 4th March.

AIBU?

But she doesn't have to give any notice at all! The LL has given her notice to leave. She is leaving within that notice period. The notice specified in the contract would only apply if it were the tenant's wish to leave and the LL hadn't already issued notice to her.

Another money grabbing landlord.

What’s the legal basis for this? Genuine question.

So I’m entitled because I’m not dripping in gratitude that the tenant didn’t refuse to leave the property under the terms that we agreed when she moved in?

Wrong.

OP has already given her notice.

"So I’m entitled because I’m not dripping in gratitude that the tenant didn’t refuse to leave the property under the terms that we agreed when she moved in?"

Honestly, @Golaz, you have absolutely no idea how lucky you are!

@Northby As for case law etc etc I've no clue. But the notice says 'You are required to leave by xx date'. So the tenant leaving will simply by doing what is asked of them. Advice to LLs is not to give too long a notice period in the OP's situation so that they won't be left with a long void period. It's so obviously common sense that no counter notice would be required from the tenant that the sensible question would be to ask anyone stating otherwise to demonstrate the relevant case law.

Erm personally take the weeks rent, let her clean as not many do. You should see the state of the majority of tenancies we have to deal with as people go and we 99% of the time never recoup the cleaning and dumping rubbish costs. Doesn't sound like you've ever had problems with the tenant in the years she's been with you so tbh your barely losing much I would let it go for a easy run. Plus it's so much nicer to stay cordial and friendly than to end up arguing over a few quid and possibly then things could become awkward and she could refuse to leave then you end up courts etc.Good luck 🙂

Thank you, this is good advice

I'm almost certain legally she does have to give notice. Even with a section 21. But on a rolling contract it would only be a month.

And OP, when people are saying you should be grateful that she's going without a fuss, and not making you take her to court, and that she'll clean and not trash the place, they're not saying you should be grateful because you're an evil LL and that's what you deserve! Most of the people saying this are LLs themselves. They're saying it because that's what so often happens. Evictions can take well over a year and cost thousands, while the tenant pays no rent in the meantime. Properties are completely trashed. This is all a very real risk. So yes, you should be grateful that's it's all going so smoothly for you because it so frequently doesn't.

It looks from this that the tenant still has to give one month notice under a periodic tenancy even if section 21 has been given
So I think I was right in my original understanding .
www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2022/05/05/do-tenants-need-to-give-their-landlord-notice-they-are-leaving-if-the-landlord-has-already-served-a-section-21/

Of course she would if it were her decision to leave. But all she's doing is letting the LL know on what date she will actually be leaving during the period in which the LL HAS ASKED HER TO LEAVE. She is not giving notice. She is merely responding to the notice that has been given to her.

Yes. I said earlier I think she has to give a month even in a section 21....

I do understand that, and I have already said I am grateful and appreciative of her on a human level, but I don’t think I owe her any special favours because of that or I am obliged to let her stay for free, and I don’t think that makes me entitled,

@thecatneuterer I think that's wrong. I remember this kind of post being on a legal landlord forum and I'm almost certain she still has to give notice. Cos she's still under contract...

Yep you were right- most others , including LL saying differently , and calling me clueless for believing this.

www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2022/05/05/do-tenants-need-to-give-their-landlord-notice-they-are-leaving-if-the-landlord-has-already-served-a-section-21/

Bizarre!

OP anyone owning property to let is really vilified on MN, it’s tradition. It’s not a reflection of sensible views in the real world. Can you seek advice from CA or a solicitor?

I've just read that. There's a comment below the blog, quoting case law, that contradicts it. All I can say is I'd love to see you argue that and win in court as it's so obviously preposterous. And I say this as a LL and not as a tenant!

And in the real world that would open you up to the tenant refusing to go at all etc etc.

Well I never!

I think the link you quote just means that the tenant has to let you know (give you notice) when they are going to be leaving, not give you a month's notice of when they are going to leave and pay rent after they have left if they have returned the keys to you and left the house in a satisfactory state. As a commenter on that blog post says:
"“It has been judicially confirmed that the service of a section 21 notice does not obviate the need for the tenant under a periodic tenancy to serve a notice to quit.” This would only be true if the original case that was the subject of the cited appeal case (Laine v Cadwallader) involved the issue of a Section 21. I can’t see any mention of that in the appeal court case notes so without that confirmation from the original case it’s not possible to know why the tenant chose to end their tenancy.

What IS mentioned is something about the landlord being able to accept an offer to surrender, but surely the issue of a Section 21 is inviting the tenant to surrender their tenancy as soon as they are willing and able to, otherwise they will be taken to court! What a nonsense it would be if the landlord gave two months’ notice and on the final day the tenant said “OK then, here are the keys, can we have our deposit back for the next place, please?” to which the landlord replied “Ah but you have to give me a months’ notice ending on a rent day” and because of the timing of the notice the tenant realises “but that means us paying for another six weeks rent!” to which the landlord greedily grins saying “It’s not my doing – it’s the law (snigger, snigger)” to which the tenant then replies “Well we can’t afford to take the new place we’d arranged then – we’ll have to stay here for the full six weeks that we are having to pay for and hope we find somewhere else by then” to which the landlord, now in a panic, says “NO, NO you can’t STAY- I’ve got a buyer wanting to move in in three weeks!”

You’ve also got the provision in Section 21C of the Housing Act 1988 for a partial refund of rent where the tenancy is ended mid-period, e.g. due to the S21 not coinciding with the rent day. What would be the point of this clause if the tenant had to give their own tenant’s Notice-to-Quit which, by definition, has to run to the next rent day? Normally “rent paid in advance cant be apportioned” therefore this clause is very specifically designed to make an exception to this rule when a S21 notice has been issued and a tenant leaves at a random time as a result of being asked to leave. I can see that when the notice was lengthened to six months during CoViD there could have been timing issues if the tenant moved
out barely days or weeks after getting the Section 21, but with only two months notice it’s normally the case that the landlord hasn’t planned very far ahead and hopes the tenant will leave quickly. As has just been illustrated, requiring notice could really complicate things.

I’m also a bit concerned that if a tenant was required to give their own NtQ they would be being forced to put themselves in a really disadvantageous legal position if the new place they’d arranged fell through. Not only would they lose the cover of the “Protection from Eviction Act 1977”, leaving them open (according to Shelter) to the landlord potentially taking peaceful unopposed possession without a court order whilst they are out of the house, e.g. when at work or having popped to the shops, but also they would be unwelcome over-stayers that could be charged double rent as ‘mesne profits’ under the “Distress for Rent Act 1737”. Would it really have been the legislators’ intent that a tenant under notice would be forced to give up their right to a court hearing in order for them to attempt to comply with such a notice when the notice itself at this stage only has the power of being a simple request until enforced by the court?

Finally, where is there any clarity in either the Housing Act 1988 itself or in any the Government guidance notes as to this alleged and rather serious alleged requirement for tenants to have to give reciprocal notice when given a S21? If it was that crucial then surely Form 6A would mention it if it were a legal requirement? Unless there is some evidence from past court or deposit adjudicator decisions, isn’t it more plausible to assume that tenants are NOT required to give reciprocal notice?"

Morally you should take payment upto Feb 20th, you served her notice not the other way around.

Golaz
So are you thinking you’d still like to charge her beyond when she goes? Are you honestly suggesting that would be your preference?

As others have said, you don’t need to be dripping in gratitude to her for going. Remember, a tenant is legally entitled to remain until formally evicted. That can be beyond a year after the notice expires. You need to be grateful that you aren’t (or hoping not to) facing this. And so many LLs do. Being a LL means you do have to take the rough with the smooth. When it turns bad it can be spectacularly bad and cost a fortune and be extremely stressful. So when it’s smooth, you shouldn’t be complacent and just say ‘well that’s what they signed up for, they are only giving me my dues’ but recognise that the tenant has made choices to make it smooth for you. Tenants can behave legally, but not make it smooth and easy. It’s not purely the legalities that impact you as LL.

I guess perhaps you haven’t had many tenants or done this for long, because you describe yourself as ‘clueless’ - but perhaps the comments from other LLs and their longer experience throws a bit more light on it, and that simple appreciation of things going smoothly is worth it and deserved. Acknowledging a tenant as a good tenant and keeping the relationship smooth right up to the end and beyond, is well worth it and can leave you the the satisfaction of job well done.

And then there’s the impact of this thread on attitudes to LLs. Has what you’ve said here helped to promote positive attitudes towards LLs? Have you confirmed some of the prejudices people have about LLs? You might be stopping being a LL, but many others are continuing. Unfortunately, when someone posts on the internet and confirms the feelings lots have that LLs don’t know the law or don’t treat their tenants well and with respect, it has a wider reach. This thread will be all some know about LLs.

Why would you want the tenant to pay for weeks behind when they’ve vacated the property, when it’s you who has served notice and asked them to leave? Does it seem right? You know they will be paying the new inflated rents elsewhere at the same time. They e already had to move when they wouldn’t have chosen to…but paying beyond when they are there too….well…..

I’d expect them to challenge you. They probably know far more about the law in this than you do. And then the relationship is soured. Perhaps you don’t care. You’ve said a couple of times that you don’t have a personal relationship with them…this seems to justify in your mind, trying to screw people for every penny you can get if you can find a way to justify it. You might just find the property isn’t as clean as you’d thought it might be!

Um, yes, or what @thecatneuterer said, far more succinctly!

“A tenant has an “obligation to serve notice to quit if he wishes unilaterally to determine a periodic tenancy, an obligation which is not ousted by any statutory provision in the Housing Act 1988.” (Laine v Cadwallader: CA 26 May 2000)”