I received a crie do coeur from a tenant the other day:
My partner and I moved in to a property 14th December 2010 for 12 months with a 6 month break clause. We pay £1,000 pcm.
We have just been advised that the Landlord wants us to leave (as in the 6 month break clause) by 13th June 2011. Thus we have been served our 2 months notice.
I have found out that my flat is on the internet with the same estate agents, available for £1300pcm and the new let is agreed 14th June 2011 (the day after we leave).
Is this allowed, we feel very used as they only wanted us in there for £1,000 pcm for 6 months so that they could use the time to advertise the let to a student let for £1,300 pcm on a set 12 month contract without a break clause. This is unethical but is it illegal?
My answer is that if it is a proper break clause, then there is nothing to stop the landlord using it. Whatever his motives.
It may not however be entirely sensible of the landlord to actually sign the incoming tenant up until the current tenant has left.
Although the fixed term may have ended, the tenant does not have to move out until an order for possession has been made, and even then can hang on until a bailiffs appointment is made.
So as this will all take the landlord some three to four months (depending on how quickly the courts action the claim), he will not be in a position to provide the incoming tenant with anywhere to live. As the outgoing tenant will still be in residence!
The incoming tenant would be justifiably aggrieved and could bring a claim against the landlord for damages for breach of contract. Which some would consider to be the landlords just desserts.
But it is in this financial climate, that the government think that they are going to be able to perusade landlords to drop their rents by 10% for housing benefit tenants! What do you think about it?
My partner and I just went through exactly the same thing as the tenant above. It cost us a fortune to move again so soon after just moving in and the landlord hung onto our deposit until the very 10th day.
And I agree Tessa, if the tenant hung on for a possession order but the landrod let to a new tenant they could really come unstuck, so I would argue that this puts the outgoing tenant in a stronger position in some senses in terms of negotiating a financial arrangement, ie, pay me and I’ll leave.
If in these circumstances, having been served a valid 2 months notice to quit, the tenants “hung on until a bailiffs appointment is made”, surely they would run the risk of being reported to a tenant vetting website by their agrieved landlord? Would it really be in their best interest to prevent the next tenant taking up residence?
I appreciate they would have the legal right to do this, but as they have asked the question of whether the landord’s action is unethical, surely they wouldn’t want to behave unethically themselves?
I’m not recommending this action to tenants, the post is more of a warning to landlords.
The landlord has certainly done nothing that the law doesnt allow and in remaining for a lawful procedure to be followed the tenant is doing no more than returning the favour.
Having said that LinniR I agree that the tenants do have to balance their actions against the possibility of muddying the water for themselves later on.
But in attempting to simply profiteer from the current climate the landlord is putting the tenants through a very expensive and stressful procedure, especially given the shortgage of rental properties currently on the market and the fact that, in London anyway, landlords and their agents are demanding 6 weeks as deposit these days rather than 1 month. Even uncontested deposits take 10 days to be returned after the tenant moves out so in the case of Tessa’s tenant they have to find about £1,800 for deposit to allow the landlord to increase their income.
I am not against break clauses but I do feel, when used in the way outlined above, that it is unethical, although not unlawful.
Landlords often compalin to me that all the laws are on the side of the tenant but in a case like this it is the tenant whose life gets turned upside down on a mere whim
The fact is, when the agreement includes such a break clause it should be very clear to the tenant that the actual fixed term is 6 months, not 12.
If a tenant wants security he should negotiate an actual long fixed term, without any break clause.
I understand that the tenants are unhappy that the Landlord has served notice, but it has to be said that they must have agreed to the Landlord break clause in the contract, and so were aware it was a possibility. Of course by law, the Landlord isn’t necessarily granted possession unless the court order is served bailiffs etc etc, but am I wrong in having the opinion that a tenant who doesn’t leave and subjects the landlord to a lengthy and expensive process to remove them, and so jeopardising the new tenancy, as well as their own credit rating, and most likely withholding rent for this period, is the party who is in the wrong…?
I feel that tenants these days are the more unethical party and as such should not be surprised when a clause they have agreed to is exercised. If the tenants had a change of circumstance and served notice, the Landlord would also be subjected to high costs and aggravation!
Landlords will not reduce their rents to assist councils who are inept at fixing the deepest of potholes. The mere prospect is laughable. Unless the councils can strike deals with non-consumer landlords, they need to realise that everyone is out to get all they can. No wonderful Big Society is on its way any time soon…
Just a rant? Most definitely. But thank you for providing such a wonderful outlet for me
:)
Gem
JJ It is very difficult for tenants to call the shots when searching for new accommodation, there are simply too many tenants searching for it to be a buyer’s market. If a landlord only wants to issue a 12 month contract with 6 month break clause and the would-be tenant doesnt like it then the landlord will simply offer elsewhere, so it is a case of like it or lump it, negotiating a longer term doesnt come into it.
Yes there are some tenants who for a variety of reasons simply want a short let but the vast majority want some sort of stability and would prefer a longer contract. Moving is costly and stressful. One of the main thrusts of all the government’s thinking on rentals at the moment emphasises flexibility and mobility but call me old fashioned, people dont generally want flexibility and mobility in their housing. they want to live and raise families in a stable home.
And Gem I dont understand your argument that tenants are unethical. Is it unethical to want to live in a secure environment?
Although I agree about the potholes changing housing benefit to drive down rents has nothing to do with councils and everything to do with the government’s overall plans, that is where the HB changes come from. Also housing beenfit funding is not transferable to road works because they are different council directorates.
I simply dont buy that everyone is out for what they can get. I am old fashioned in this respect and I believe in a little used word called ‘Honour’ and that if a person agrees to let to a person at an agreed rent they shouldnt just walk on it when there is a chance of earning more money.
I also believe that being a landlord carries with it certain responsibilities. I know many good, honourable landlords. To put profits over people’s lives and homes just plays into the stereotype of the greedy money-grabbing landlord that the business is always trying to shrug off.
Now that’s my rant over too haha :)
cri de coeur I think..
You say “The other day”.. Similar thing happened to someone I know- but after careful reading of the break clause it became clear Landlord had issued notice a couple of days early. Check exactly the wording of the tenancy & break clause! In his case they offered to leave when requested, but given invalidity of notice only with good refs & one month’s rent refunded – and got them.
To be fair, Gem, how’s it unethical to not leave when the s. 21 notice expires and thus subject the landlord to Court proceedings to get them out? The landlord surely ought to have been aware of the method by which possession should be regained upon entering into the tenancy agreement. If you find this objectionable, don’t let out the property.
Furthermore, unless the tenant has somewhere else to go within those two and a bit months, or can raise a deposit on a further privately rented property, they will have to go to the Council to try to be rehoused that way. Who are likely to “gatekeep” them and say that they’re intentionally homeless as they could have stayed on till the bailiff’s warrant was executed, but didn’t. Hence us legal practitioners, when advising tenants, cannot tell them to leave upon expiry of the s. 21 notice.
Of course, you did make sure the notice was right, the deposit was protected, the prescribed information served and, if appropriate, the place licensed as an HMO, didn’t you?