Deposit Dilemma with tenant asking to stay longer?

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.

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?

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.

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.

The issue of tenant staying beyond the end of their own notice period seems similar to this post https://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.

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?

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.

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?

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
?

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.