Student house fallen through

[Silverstar2]

My DS and 4 friends secured a student house for their final year (Brighton area) back in March. By April, deposit paid, first month's rent paid, tenancy agreement signed by all tenants, landlord and guarators, one of which is my DH. Move in date of end August. Great. All set.

Son now home ( 100 miles away from Uni) for summer. Just had an email from the letting agent saying the LL wants to sell the house so is cancelling the tenancy! Anyone who has had any experience with student lettings will know that at this time of year there are 1. Very very few student houses available as they are all sorted month's ago 2. The ones that are left are miles away and poor quality - hence being left and 3. More expensive. Son and friends were meant to be paying £150 a week each plus bills, the only properties available are around 180/190pw, they can't afford this.

We are waiting to hear back from the agent, but are we unreasonable for seeking financial compensation from LL, as he is in breach of contract? I have a friend that said LL is within his rights but from some research this is untrue. Son has nowhere to live in September. It is going to cost us, as parents, a lot of money to find somewhere at short notice. I think the LL should pay the difference in rent for anything over the 145 a week.

Has anyone got any experience of this?! So annoyed right now as DS did everything right by sorting this out early. The LL has also held around 7k from the group in rent and deposit since April then pulls this shit.

Thanks for any help. I will sue him for breach of contract of if I can.

You're not correct, if there is no break clause in the contract he's legally not able to pull out (just as the tenants are unable to as well). Why bother posting if you don't know what you're talking about?

I would get some proper advice. It may also be worth DS approaching the university. They often have a list of landlords that still have availability in their properties for students to access if they don't manage to secure on campus accommodation.

Thanks everyone.

@theeyeofdoe

You're not correct, if there is no break clause in the contract he's legally not able to pull out (just as the tenants are unable to as well). Why bother posting if you don't know what you're talking about?
Oh sorry. I didn't realise the Op said there was no break clause.
Oh hang on. She didn't 🙄
Perhaps take your own advice Petal.

There is no tenancy until one of the students moves in, up until that point it is a mere contract. There may be a clear breach of contract here but nobody knows what is in the contract because we haven't seen it so can't possibly advise with any accuracy.

No it's you. There needs to be a break clause for the landlord to pull out.

No that's not true. I'm not sure why people keep posting this.

If you have a contract with a starting date it's legaly binding.

The landlord is exercising their statutory right to sell their property which trumps any contract clause that states otherwise.

The contract should have a break clause for selling, but even if a break clause for selling is absent, it is still a legally binding implied contract clause- as all statutory rights accidentally left out of contracts are.

@theeyeofdoe
You keep banging on about no break clause. The Op has not stated anything about a break clause being present or absent.

Try the going for the letting agents using the property ombudsman https://selfserve.tpos.co.uk/

They were very useful when DD's student let was withdrawn after signing. A slightly different scenario, LLord hadn't got around to completing work they wanted to do.

Just to confirm, there is no break clause.

Are you saying that a break clause is a statutory right in a Tenancy Agreement?
Its not

A landlord can sell a property whenever they like (a proprietary not statutory right) but unless they have lawfully determined any tenancy agreement, the property is sold with tenants in situ and the new owner becomes the landlord.

So in this case if there is no break clause the landlord must give them access at the start of term. The tenancy cannot be terminated before the expiry of the fixed term. The tenant's contractual right is enforceable by injunction. Alternatively the tenants can sue for damages for the landlords breach to recover additional expenses arising from the breach.

Proper legal advice will see you good...

It is a contract. It is not a tenancy until the person moves in.

The case is an appeal court case Lynch v Kirby. Have a look. The judgment is very clear, it found for the tenant, agreeing that the tenancy had commenced on the day occupation commences, the 20th February 1997, giving him a fully assured tenancy.

If you look at my post and read it properly you will see I state it is a contract. All the usual remedies are available for a breach of contract.

If your son and friends haven't yet been to see the student union housing person they need to do so. There's likely to be a solicitor working with the union who knows their way around this sort of issue. There's probably also a list of available accommodation held by the union too.

No I am saying selling is the statutory right, regardless of whether or not there is a break clause in the AST.

A break clause isn’t a statutory right.

It isn’t a “proprietary right” at all per a later poster as proprietary rights relate to intellectual property, not the property rights or their derived statutory rights which allow landlords to sell their leased properties if certain conditions are met.

Have you read the full judgment of Lynch v Kirby, because it does not say what you think it says.
That was about intention to create a tenancy as opposed to a licence where exclusive occupation was relevant.

Here the parties have agreed to enter into an Assured shorthold fixed term tenancy and the landlord has agreed to give them exclusive possession.

Now as a matter of fact, you might argue it isn't actually "assured" because they aren't occupying as their only or main home thus not fulfilling the tenant condition giving their contract the cloak of security afforded by the Housing Act 1988 but that doesn't mean the landlord gets to say actually I've changed my mind with no ramifications.

Hopefully the OP will have had some decent legal advice by now.

Most student tenancies are AST for the length of the year or academic year, so the rules around section 21s do not apply- During an AST you can only give notice if there is a break clause.

There won't be a break clause before the tenancy starts- I mean you could put one in but it would be very, very unusual.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/changes_to_your_move_in_date This is about delaying the move in date, but it does suggest this is breach of contract.

Yes, paragraph 16 is very clear. The tenancy commenced the day the tenant moved in. It's basic housing law and fully supports my position that there was no tenancy until he moved into the property. There was a contract from the point the tenancy agreement was signed by both parties. The remedy lays in breach of contract.

Happened to my Dd a few years back, we picked her up after first year in halls and she said she'd show us where her and her friends would be moving to in the September, when we got there spotted the SOLD! sign out the front and she called the EA in a panic, they couldn't have cared less and just said don't worry we've got loads of other places! All turned out fine in the end, good luck OP!

I'm sorry but you still are not right. In that case the tenancy started when he moved in. The landlord tried to argue he wasn't a tenant but a licensee. There was no signed tenancy agreement. Hence para 16.

I'm this case there is a signed tenancy agreement therefore the parties have entered into a tenancy with a future start date. Like all contracts it can only be terminated in the ways provided for by the tenancy agreement itself lest the landlord be in breach of contract.
If they secure an injunction (for specific performance to allow entry on start date) they'll be assured tenants too with all the protection of the Housing Act 1988.

Ignore the poster who says no rights because that's wrong.

I think we are in agreement. My point was that a poster said they had a tenancy. My point is that it is not a tenancy until the tenant has moved in. Up until that point it is a contract and all the usual contractual remedies for breach of contract are available. That includes damages, SP (unlikely as the ll will no longer be the owner) etc.