Mortgage Express Harsh Realities re Mortgage Arrears

I would like some advice on the following matter.LPA Receivers were in control of my property prior to the tenants vacating the property. Who were issued with a Section 21 Notice between 18th and 30th August 2013 by the receivers, which was for a period of no less than 2 months. Therefore the tenants vacated the property one month into the Section 21 Notice without notifying myself (The Landlord) nor the Receivers.
the tenancy was not renewed when it expired on the 16/12/2011 therefore since this date the tenancy became a Periodic Tenancy.
As the tenants vacated the property without notifying the LPA Receivers or the Landlord and after only 1 month into the Section 21 Notice period of 3 months. are they in breach of the tenancy agreement and also the Section 21 Notice.
There is a dispute between myself and the tenants for the deposit as they did not actually give notice and they moved out i month within the section 21 notice period of 3 months. and with out paying rent from the date they moved out.
are they entitled to there deposit back or not? from the DPS please advise.
thanks.

Reply to the comment left by "Tony Church" at "16/12/2013 - 22:26":

Hi Tony

Providing that you complied with the DPS scheme rules fully in terms of protecting the deposit, issuing the deposit protection certificate and prescribed information I see no reason why the DPS would rule against you given the circumstances you have outlined. You should also consider pursuing your tenants for the remainder of their debts to you - see >>> http://www.property118.com/good-debt-recovery-agent/44679/
.

Tenant can end the periodic tenancy whenever they want provided they serve a valid notice to quit, irrelevant of any s.21 notice.
In this case, I think the reasonable thing to do is to hold tenant liable for rent in lieu of notice from the date they left up to when a notice to quit would have expired, which may before the s.21 notice's expiry.

@Mark and Romain and for Tony

The answer here is very easy. For ease of example I am going to assume a tenancy that started 1.1.12 and went periodic 1.1.13 with rent payable 1st monthly (though post Spencer v Taylor that element may become immaterial.

When the Landlord gives notice say 1.10.13 he gives 2 months and let's say for ease of dates that the maturity date is 30.11.13 as I don't understand your reference Tony to 3 months though I do see Romain's link then to a NTQ.

Tenant finds new property 31.10.13 or few days before and only one month into the 2 month notice period given by the Landlord and has to move immediately to secure it. So they leave, citing the fact Tony has given them notice to leave anyway, so all they are doing is complying with his notice but leaving a bit earlier but without paying the November rent.

This they are entitled to do, Tony can't lock them in the property but he can lock them in the agreement and its terms including terms of notice, so they cannot leave penalty free.

Tony has served 2 months and requires the property 30.11.13 not 31.10.13. If he decides to accept early surrender as it suits him to then fine the tenants are off the hook. But if he does not he is entitled to the rent for November.

If the tenants want to give notice as Romain says as they are entitled to, let's be generous and say Tony accepts it by email (which he doesn't have to as it should be in writing and signed) and counts it from 1.11.13 so they can leave penalty free 30.11.13 - after paying the November rent of course .

Mark is also correct in theory, but given how dopey the Scheme Adjudicators are and the bleating, weeping story the tenants will weave and also OFT opinion on notice and tenants rights I think it may be an uphill struggle to get DPS to award the November rent to you.

Best of luck with it but above is the legal position

A s.21 has no effect on the tenancy and does not entitle the tenant to anything. Here the tenant didn't serve any notice so, indeed unless landlord has in effect accepted surrender, they are liable for rent in lieu.

(note that an email is in writing, just that service by email must be agreed upon beforehand)

Romain

Please quote authority where a Court has accepted email as service. All my legal advice is that it still has to be an original signature, not electronic. From memory the last case that reaffirmed this involved sharers where one was maliciously trying to give notice using someone else's email address.

I assume you only mean a s21 notice has no effect when served by either party in this specific case, not generally, as all that happens in an LPA appiintment is that the Receiver steps into the Landlord's shoes but acting for their appointor.

SO...if a borrower has no arrears at all and never has and decides to sell one property, then MX won't compel the sale of the rest?

If that is the case and the borrowers who are complaining have at some time defaulted on their payments they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If it's not the case then MX are being very unfair.

Being a "good" landlord is a serious business and if payments cannot be made when due that is not good business practice nor is it ethical. I don't like the banks either but they get the same respect from me as any other creditor (not least because they can affect my credit rating).

I understand that sometimes circumstances get in the way but then they need facing not blaming the other party and crying "unfair". This is one of the differences between amateur and professional landlords. They may be taking a very hard line but no lender is keen on poor risk borrowers.

Maximizing borrowing is only OK if you can be sure you are not over-extended. A buffer against defaulting tenants is a requirement in this business, whether salary or a small cash pot.

Maybe Tony Church's question could be in another thread, that was a bit confusing...

Reply to the comment left by "Puzzler " at "17/12/2013 - 15:52":

The thought crossed my mind as well if this really is a dividing line between the amateurs and professionals in the letting business. There's no reason for the amateurs to be given protection. With business comes risk as well as reward. I suspect there's going to far more sob stories in the future. Given that many people give scant regard to any form of business plan when setting off on what is a long term plan. The "boom" years may well have clouded peoples judgement as to the true returns on letting property, and until the late 90's it was predominately the preserve of those with capital to invest .

Hi All thank you for your feed back,yes I have fully complied with the DPS scheme, and the tenants deposit is with the DPS my main point is, is the tenant entitled to there deposit back if they have not complied with the notice period and moved out within 1 month instead of staying and paying the rent for the full 2 months of the section 21 notice?
As the tenant is disputing that they are entitled to there deposit back and wishing to claim her full deposit back from the DPS.
I believe that the DPS should come down in my favor.