Deposit Dilemma with tenant asking to stay longer?

Deposit Dilemma with tenant asking to stay longer?

14:20 PM, 3rd February 2015, About 9 years ago 46

Text Size

I have a tenant who has handed in her notice and is due to leave this Friday. She has now informed the managing agent that she can’t move out as the house she is moving into is not available until 16 Feb. Rent has always been paid on time.

She is willing to pay rent for the extra days she is there, but I have a bad feeling about this as if her house falls through then it could be longer than a week. There is no new tenant moving in as I am selling the property.

My questions are:

  • As she handed in her notice what does this extra rent constitute?
  • Is it in relation to the same tenancy or not?
  • If not will it cause me a problem to accept it?
    What is my position with the deposit?
  • It is under a deposit scheme, but does this extension in leaving date (which I have not said yes to yet) cause me to request a further deposit?

A section 21 was issued at the time the tenancy was signed and I’m wondering if I should start lining up any proceeding in case this all goes to pot.

Thanks

Sharmeladelayed


Share This Article


Comments

Romain Garcin

14:37 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Masters" at "04/02/2015 - 14:26":

Hi Steve,

The restriction only applies to s.21 evictions.

S.21 states that a possession order cannot take effect within the first 6 months after the beginning of the first tenancy (i.e. basically during the first 6 months of occupancy).

Thus, in principle the notice could expire earlier, the case heard earlier in court and the order made at the time but with an appropriate effective date.
It might be a different story in practice, though.

Ian Ringrose

14:40 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Romain,

How would costs be awarded if the case was heard before the end of the first 6 months?

And would this not be a good way for a landlord to speed up the process if the tenant has been told not to leave by a council?

Romain Garcin

15:08 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Ringrose" at "04/02/2015 - 14:40":

I must say that I have no idea how that would likely play out in court, including how the application would likely be received.

One thing to keep in mind is that in order to start proceedings within the first 6 months of occupancy the initial tenancy must be for a term of less than 6 months, which I think happens rather rarely.

Perhaps people like Landlord Action who have seen many scenarios have seen this case "in the wild". For most landlords it is likely academic.

Ian Ringrose

15:17 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Thanks Romain,

I am thinking of HMO, when for exmaple one tenant not doing the washing up, could lead to the other 5 tenants leaving, but there is no effect eviction option apart from S21. As in a HMO tenants often just ignore the 6 months minimal stray anyway, if this would work, then it would be a good reason to create ASTs shorter then 6 months.

Steve Masters

16:34 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

The issue of tenant staying beyond the end of their own notice period seems similar to this post http://www.property118.com/human-rights-notice-quit/71694/ also from Sharmela.

So, the 6 month rule is not applicable in Sharmela's case in this post.

Steve Masters

16:57 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

When the landlord initiates proceedings the tenancy can only be ended by the tenant handing back possession or by a court order so the landlord CAN accept rent in advance past the end of the notice period without fear of inadvertently creating a new tenancy because the original tenancy is still in force.

But if the tenant initiates the end by giving notice then the tenancy ends at the end of the notice period whether or not the tenant vacates (or is this only the case when one of the joint tenants actually vacates).

So if the landlord is careful ie by NOT accepting any rent in advance, a new tenancy can be prevented from being created inadvertently and any eviction proceedings could proceed against the original tenancy that has now terminated.

Have I got that right?

Michael Barnes

17:21 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "04/02/2015 - 14:02":

Thank you for making me read S21 again.

I see now that section 21(5)(b) and section 21(7) together address the issue.

I now understand what a replacement tenancy is; I had been having some difficulty understanding its implications in te Tenancy (reform) Bill.

Ray Davison

17:23 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Masters" at "04/02/2015 - 16:57":

But the question remains how do you stop the tenant paying you if they have your bank details?

Steve Masters

17:28 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Perhaps if you put in writing that the monies were not requested and are not accepted as rent but they will be held to offset any liabilities by the ex tenant occupying the property beyond the end of the tenancy and used to settle any compensation for lost rent
?

sharmela Jansari

17:29 PM, 4th February 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "04/02/2015 - 17:23":

The tenant in my case has paid the managing agent and I have asked them not to send it to me.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now