Jump to content


Told they needed house for family, now they've put it back on the market


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4730 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We were on a standard shorthold tenancy agreement, started at 6 months and then just rolled on after that. We receieved a letter notifying us the landlords required the house back, stating 'due to family circumstances'. They didn't serve formal notice but did say we had a couple of months to look for somewhere else. Due to the rent actually being below what it was for other similar houses, we couldn't afford to move to another house that would have bene suitable for our family. I work 50 miles form where the house was so we decided after great deliberaiton to move closer to my work, therefore saving a lot of money in petrol and being able to spend the saving on more monthly rent.It has worked out well although we did have to pull our eldest daughter out of a very good school where she was very happy and moved away from friends and family who were all local and not many drive, so for my wife who doesn't drive she is having to try and make new friends etc.

 

Having just checked literally a week after moving out the house has gone straight back on the market at a much higher rent. We had some issues with them before we got the notice, mostly that they didn't fix the water heater, leaky roof or a broken oven seal so we went at least 2 months with intermittent hot water, an oven that was basically unusable and water coming into the bathroom every time it rained.

 

I'm wondering if we have any right to complain about this, as far as I know if they had served formal notice to quit giving the reason of wanting it back for themselves they then couldn't have rented it out again, but I'm not sure about our specific situation. I've also noticed amusingly they've photoshopped out subsidence cracks in the new photos on the property website - the council inspected it and told us it was subsiding which we passed onto the landlords but they ignored it.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, had they given you notice under section 21(4)(a) of the 1988 Housing Act, the could have given any or no reason for wanting the property back - the plain facts are you were past your agreed 6 months and so the landlord would have been in his rights to reclaim the property without reason. However, he didn't, but you still agreed to go based on his informal notice. No one can force you out of a rental property except for a court bailiff with a court order. Your landlord would have eventually discovered the correct process and would have got one, so your move was inevitable.

 

That's the cold, hard facts. However, I don't want to appear cruel! Maybe it was for family reasons - maybe his nephew is facing bankruptcy and the sale of the house could provide some funds to prevent this?

 

With regard to your actual tenancy - there are processes in place to get these things resolved. While you are living there is the time to act - not suffer for months for no real reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments apply only if the premises are entirely within England and Wales, and only if you were granted a shorthold tenancy (under which you - and your spouse/partner/children, if any - had exclusive use of a seperate dwelling, which was not shared with another tenant nor with the landlord), and only if you were over 18 years of age when the tenancy was granted.

 

This posting is supplemental to the information in this forum's "sticky" threads and is NOT to be read in isolation.

 

 

Basically, poster, Snorkerz is correct.

 

You were under no legal duty to vacate the premises. You had a valid 'rolling' tenancy, and no notice of terminatiion was ever served on you, nor had a court order for eviction ever been granted.

 

Therefore you had the right to remain.

 

If the landlord had desired possession, he had no need to give any reason. He could have served a section 21 notice, giving two months notice of termination, to end the tenancy. No reasons are required in such a notice.

 

You had no defence if he did serve such a notice.

 

So whatever his reasons, you could not have succeeded. The tenancy would have ended whatever you did.

 

 

If you are a shorthold tenant, you can be evicted from the premises by simply being given 2 months notice, in writing, taking effect after the initial six months ends (expiring on the last day of a rent period). No reason has to be given. Whatever the circumstances, the landlord can simply end the tenancy in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...