Landlord breaking the lease

Re: Notice from Landlord

Purple said:
So you are saying that a landlord should be able to force a tenant to pay rent for the full term of the lease, even if the tenant moves out?
I think that's a bit harsh, but you are entitled to your views, even if they are very rightwing.
Click to expand...

Rightwing? I am saying that the situation that currently exists where a tenant has effectively no security of tenure is not tenable. If this were to change I would also expect a commensurate change in the responsibilities that tenants have and if this included a legal obligation to honour the terms of a lease that might be no bad thing. The main thrust of my argument is that it is tenants who are badly represented at present, not landlords, this needs to change to encourage a more mature rental market similar to that that exists in other countries.
 
I think all tenants should withold rents as system is not fair ,investment properties for peoples homes ,giving tennants very little rights,I think if all tenants went on strike and witheld rent for a couple of weeks it might put a stop to this building boom which has spiralled out of controland values of properties would go where they should be ,ie affordable based on an average income30 years ago when time were bad one income could buy a house now it takes two good ones,is this progress?
Regards
Patt
 

That's ridiculous. I don't want to buy. I require a landlord to rent me a property and I want a market that's well regulated. It isn't all about buying.
 
Ridiculous i agree!Fair enough,but now we have got to the rediculous stage where we have to import people into country to build houses to be rented by the workers who are building more,All over the place there are examples of bad planning decisions ,green spaces been eaten up for yet more houses and apartments,Commercial premises such as garages ,garden centres ,Hotels are closing down for more houses.I think that when we wake up from this boom there will be tribunals about lack of vision ,where are the three fs,we spent years trying to get rid of a landlord class,now we are back to square 1,only this time its not the Brits but the Banks and the Middle classes with second and third properties payed for by tennants who have very little security,and probably couldnt get a morgage if they wanted one .Its ok when your young and free,but it aint a party if you are trying to educate kids in local school and live in a secure environment,to be told ,you got to go because landlord got to cash in his/her assets
 
pattt said:
only this time its not the Brits but the Banks and the Middle classes with second and third properties payed for by tennants who have very little security,and probably couldnt get a morgage if they wanted one .
Click to expand...
What do you define as “middle class”? If it’s a two-income family anywhere near the average household income then I don’t think there are too many of them with three properties.
pattt said:
Its ok when your young and free,but it aint a party if you are trying to educate kids in local school and live in a secure environment,to be told ,you got to go because landlord got to cash in his/her assets
Click to expand...
That’s a good point but if a tenant is in a property more than a few years they acquire quite good rights of tenure. There will always be circumstances where a landlord has to sell and I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that there should be a blanket ban on this, just as I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that all tenants should be made to pay rent for the full term of their lease if they want or need to leave.
If a tenant wants to break a lease they risk loosing their deposit. This seems fair. If a landlord wants to sell he or she has to give quite a bit of notice. I also think that this is fair.
 
Purple said:
That’s a good point but if a tenant is in a property more than a few years they acquire quite good rights of tenure.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this just isn't true, the landlord can simply decide that he wants to sell and turf out his tenants, he can also decide that he wants to renovate or move in himself. This is not security of tenure in the sense that a lot of our European neighbours would understand.


Why is commercial property often sold with a sitting tenant? What is so different from the residential situation?

If a tenant wants to break a lease they risk loosing their deposit. This seems fair. If a landlord wants to sell he or she has to give quite a bit of notice. I also think that this is fair.
Click to expand...

Consider the following scenario - you have signed a 2 year lease for a property, expecting to be there for the full 2 years with your family. The landlord decides on a whim to sell the property and gives you the statutory 40 days to move. Fair? Perhaps the landlord changes his mind and re-rents the property, how would you know to seek redress? Would it actually make any difference as you have already had to go through the enormous upheaval of moving home? (Homeowners - what would you think of the prospect of having only 40 days to find a new home?)

Is it your attitude that "sure they're only renters - they'll find something? They're probably used to being evicted in any case." The sooner tenants' homes are properly protected the better, the PRTB was a step in the right direction but does not go nearly far enough.
 
"Consider the following scenario - you have signed a 2 year lease for a property, expecting to be there for the full 2 years with your family. The landlord decides on a whim to sell the property and gives you the statutory 40 days to move."

There seems to be a common misunderstanding here. I hope this will help:

1. If you have a two year lease, then you are absolutely entitled to stay for the two years unless the lease document itself gives the landlord an 'out'. The answer here is not regulation but negotiation. A tenant should not accept an early termination provision in the lease if the tenant does not want it in there.

2. This was the case before PRT Act and PRT Board ever came along. It is still the case.

3. If you are on a monthly lease, or if your one year lease has come to an end and you have continued on from month to month, the new regulatory regime gives you some rights. However, these rights do not include a right to stay on if the Landlord wants to sell, or to move in a family member. This means that the regulatory protection is kinda weak; but it in no way stops tenants from negotiating better terms when they sign leases, and it is currently by no means a landlord's market.
 

This situation only applies because people are not used to asking for more. A friend of mine was going to buy a new house but it would have meant leaving a rental prperty that he loved in an area that he loved with a reasonable rent in order to move to a much more expensive property 20miles away.

His rationale was that he wanted to be able to 'do what he wanted to the property' and that he had no security of tenure. I convinced him to speak to the landlord and discuss the situation. As a result, he now has a 4 year lease, he has new furniture, a paint job that he chose himself and is happy with his family.

Just to reiterate. I spoke to another solicitor and if there is a lease, the landlord has no right to evict the tenants before the end of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register