Deed of Surrender – Landlord and Tenant Q&A

Brilliant question, I’ve never even considered this scenario before so this thread is going to be an education for me.

Logic would suggest to me that notice would not be required but that an eviction order would, unless the tenant could argue they signed the surrender under duress of course. That said, I really don’t have the slightest idea so I’m looking forward to reading the answer.

Brilliant question regarding surrender of tenancy, certainly a new one on me! – http://t.co/LQzcEgBSp6 #landlords #property #law #legal

— Mark Alexander (@iAmALandlord) February 20, 2014

.

Good question! I don’t know the answer but interested to learn it.

One way to avoid all the nastiness is to “incentivise” them to leave.

It can stick in the craw to do this, but it might end up being a lot less expensive in the long run and also minimise the stress of enduring this situation.

Sometimes, you just have to take a view ….

Interesting question Robert.

I don’t know the answer but I will watch this thread with interest as I have a tenant moving out in unusual circumstances and I will be getting them to sign a Surrender Form as they leave.

If the answer to Roberts question is No, what would be the difference between that and a tenant returning to the property with a spare key and letting them selves back in again after they had supposedly left?

No, I don’t believe a tenant could ever become an illegal squatter because their continued stay in your property is the continuation of a legal right of entry to the property – just because they have overstayed does not make them a squatter as they were originally given the keys and have not left..

The usual landlord/tenant eviction process would need to apply in this case and the landlord would not have the right to gain entry until the court authorised him to do so, or the tenant had left and returned the keys and removed their possessions.

No he cannot change the locks.

It’s the same as if tenant remains agter expiry of notice to quit: there is no tenancy but occupier is still protected by the Protection from Eviction Act, and the landlord must get a court order.

Ex-tenant would be a tresspasser but not a squatter.

“double rent” comes to mind, like when a tenent does not leave after giving notice. Hopefuly someone that knows the law of this willl leave a detailed comment.

Reply to the comment left by “Romain ” at “20/02/2014 – 14:06“:

In your opinion Romain, would notice need to be served or would the Deed of Surrender be deemed equivalent to a notice served and expired?

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “20/02/2014 – 14:22“:

Further thought …. would it be incumbent upon the landlord to prove that a tenant moved out as per the Deed of Surrender and then regained illegal entry the day later or would it be incumbent on a tenant to prove that he didn’t?

Fascinating this, I just hope I never have to deal with the scenario!
.

My understanding is: The Deed of Surrender ends the tenancy, so thereafter the ex-tenant becomes a trespasser and the landlord can immediately seek a court order on that basis.
The landlord must make sure not to accept rent, etc.

Reply to the comment left by “Romain ” at “20/02/2014 – 14:27“:

Same as my thoughts then, I prefer your words to mine though 🙂
.