Deposit Dilemma with tenant asking to stay longer?

Deposit Dilemma with tenant asking to stay longer?

14:20 PM, 3rd February 2015, About 10 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

JohnCaversham

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:46 AM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Ringrose" at "04/02/2015 - 09:33":

I understand i think..So in allowing the tenant to stay a new tenancy is created thus the previous S21 becomes void as permission to stay has been granted...

So only option then open to Sharmela is to officially deny an extension, the tenant will stay anyway, but the key is to not accept rent up front, then the original S21 can be enforced (if need be) but the tenant will have (hopefully) vacated by this time anyway, but double rent can then be deducted from the deposit once the tenant has vacated...Mmmm lots of variables, i can see now why this is such sticky ground, plus no doubt a falling out with the tenant....

Ray Davison

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:54 AM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

The other option, is it legally acceptable for the tenant to retract their notice (Agreed by Landlord) then the original tenancy would continue. Of course the tenant would then need to put in a new notice which is probably a longer longer than she wants, but hey-ho that's tough luck. I've had tenants ask if they can stay on a day to day basis before. When I ask if they would be happy with me offering them day to day security they are not impressed! In this case of course the Landlords original S212 would remain valid for enforcement if necessary..

Michael Barnes

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:19 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "04/02/2015 - 10:11":

It is my understanding that double rent applies ONLY where tenant has given notice to quit and then stays on. It is not available for a S21 case.

Michael Barnes

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:26 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "03/02/2015 - 21:51":

Ray,

Could you give me legal reference for that statement, please?

What you are saying suggests that if a new tenancy agreement is signed, then the tenant has only two month's security of tenure. I thought the 1988 Act said otherwise.

Ray Davison

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:47 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "04/02/2015 - 12:26":

The Act gives 6 months from first occupation, not each subsequent tenancy as well. At the moment I cannot point you to the reference but it is in the legislation and has been referenced on her before (Also as a result of me raising the discussion) so a search should find it. I'll have a look as well.

Ray Davison

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:55 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "04/02/2015 - 12:26":

Michael,
Do you know how to apply the Distress for Rent provision? Should it just be calculated upon vacant possession? What if the tenant just carries on paying you through their Standing Order as you cannot physically stop them doing that and as you say that would create a new tenancy?

I guess you could state in your standard response to notice document that any payments made after the notice periods are not accepted as rent and will either be returned or held as payment towards Distress for Rent costs? I know this rarely happens but like all things in this game if you do not prepare yourself and your procedures for these eventualities, when they happen any judgement will inevitably go the tenants way.

Romain Garcin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:02 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "04/02/2015 - 12:47":

Hi Ray, Michael,

The reference is section 21 itself, which defines this 6 month restriction and when it applies.

Ray Davison

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:09 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

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

Ha, if only other things in property were so obvious, so obvious in fact that one would never believe it!

Thanks Romain

Steve Masters

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:26 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

My understanding of the 6 month rule is this is the minimum time between when an eviction case can be heard in court and the date of very first occupancy. Is that correct?

Ian Ringrose

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:35 PM, 4th February 2015, About 10 years ago

Romain, my understanding must be wrong, but please help me see the errors of my ways….

The issues I have is:

S21 says “and no further assured tenancy (whether shorthold or not) is for the time being in existence, other than [F1an assured shorthold periodic tenancy (whether statutory or not)];”

But as I understand it, as soon as rent is accepted and someone has exclusive use of a property as their home a tenancy is created even if no paperwork has been done.

The notice from the tenant ENDED the tenancy so there is NO tenancy in place at that point, hence a NEW tenancy is created, not an extension of the current tenancy. As the original tenancy has ended, I can’t see how the new tenancy can be a “statutory periodic tenancy”, so the new tenancy must have a length of at least 6 months.

So where is my “logic” going wrong….. And is there any case law on this…

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 Automated Assistant Read More