Tenant away travelling

Grandpa Hassan

What are the views on this....

Tenant been in place for 2.5 years. No new lease signed, so part 4 applies. Everything above board....tax, PTRB etc. Good relationship with tenant to date

But LL needs to move back in. Happy to give the 56 day notice. But absolutely cannot afford to wait any longer. However, tenant is leaving in 3 weeks to go travelling in NZ for 3 months.

So tenant can't move out in 56 days, and for LL to insist that she moves out in 21 will go against part IV, and tenant would be within their rights to refuse.

Rock and hard place spring to mind.....

Paulw

It's then down to the LL and tenant to come to an agreement.

Grandpa Hassan

Paulw wrote: »

It's then down to the LL and tenant to come to an agreement.

But am I right in that the tenant can just refuse?

21 days is not much time to find another nice place and move everything. edit: it is actuallless than 3 weeks now....probably more like 16/17 days

Before the discussion starts, it would be good to be clear on the eventual fallback position if push comes to shove. Either

1) the tenant can refuse to move in 21 days, as is against the terms of part IV, and the fact that they can't move in 56 is just the LLs problem to suck up

or

2) the fact that they can't move in 56 days means that they have an obligation to move before they go travelling

djimi

Give your 56 days notice as you are entitled to do; its not your problem that she is heading off travelling. However, if she does not vacate after the 56 days then there isnt a whole lot more that you can do other than go through the PRTB to start the eviction process, so you probably need to start planning alternative accomodation until she comes back Id say.

D3PO

^^

This.

Its an unfortunate situation but its up to the tenant to figure it out not the LL. Problem is the tenant is likely to ignore the request given how awkward it will make things for them and thus will end up in an eviction scenario.

Common sense should prevail however. The LL really shouldn't have such a hard stop, surely a compromise can be reached given the complexities here. Im sure the LL could figure out a temp solution for 2 months if they really sat down and though about it.

Graham

Have the landlord and tenant had a conversation about this?

If the tenant is aware they're going to have to move out before they travel, in 56 days or almost immediately upon their return Tenant might be happy to vacate early and save the guts of three months rent anyway.

Can the landlord offer to store the tenants belongings to soften the blow/help the tenant out?

D3PO

Graham wrote: »

Have the landlord and tenant had a conversation about this?

If the tenant is aware they're going to have to move out before they travel, in 56 days or almost immediately upon their return Tenant might be happy to vacate early and save the guts of three months rent anyway.

Can the landlord offer to store the tenants belongings to soften the blow/help the tenant out?

This is exactly what I was thinking. Could then be a win win for everybody. Tenant saves on 3 months rent, LL gets to move back in. Tenant has money saved to stay in a hotel or similar short term whilst they find somewhere new to live once returning from their hols.

djimi

The issue I can see arising with the above (which is the most sensible approach I agree) is the time frame involved. If the tenant is heading off travelling in three weeks then its asking a lot for them to have to arrange storage of their belongings and to move out of the property as well as having to deal with the rest of the planning and preperation that goes with a three month trip. Had they been given more notice and time to prepare then it would be less of an issue, but three weeks is pushing it really.

I appreciate that this is not the landlords problem, but if I was in that situation and was given such short notice to move out and sort my belongings on top of preparing for a long trip then I think Id probably be inclined to stay put and deal with it when I got back given that there is no way the PRTB will hear the case in the meantime...

kkelliher

the basic principal would be issue the required notice and if the tenant does not vacate by the required time they would in theory be liable for damages under the act if the Landlord was to make a complaint to the prtb, but for something like this it should be possible to agree a solution without the need for further recourse

djimi

What damages would they be liable for?

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The issue I can see arising with the above (which is the most sensible approach I agree) is the time frame involved. If the tenant is heading off travelling in three weeks then its asking a lot for them to have to arrange storage of their belongings and to move out of the property as well as having to deal with the rest of the planning and preperation that goes with a three month trip. Had they been given more notice and time to prepare then it would be less of an issue, but three weeks is pushing it really.

TO be honest if your going away for 3 months you would be expected to have everything planned well in advance of 3 weeks before. It also doesn't take that much to organize a man with a van and organize to move things to a self storage facility.

Most tenants rent furnished so your not talking swathes of furniture to move etc, Im sure as it would be beneficial to both parties the LL would be more than happy to help where possible if it was too much for the tenant anyway as they also have something to gain here.

Where theres a will theres a way. If a way cant be found its down to laziness or stubbornness on somebodies behalf not because of time constraints.

djimi

I know what youre saying, and I agree if it can be made work then its the sensible solution. But from a tenants point of view it might not be something that they want to, or indeed can, get into that close to a big trip. In my case I rent furnished, and if I had to move all of my stuff out at short notice it would be a major undertaking, not to mention having to find somewhere to store it all safely and securely!

The OP just needs to be aware that this may well be something that is not going to go smoothly, and unless the tenant is agreeable to move before they leave, the OP needs to prepare for the fact that they wont be getting possession of the property until the tenant returns.

kkelliher

djimi wrote: »

What damages would they be liable for?

the cost of the landlord having to rent elsewhere in the event of their not vacating the premises in accordance with the notice under the act.

djimi

Fair enough, must admit it never occured to me that the tenant would be held liable for such an expense!

kkelliher

djimi wrote: »

Fair enough, must admit it never occured to me that the tenant would be held liable for such an expense!

it would come down to the decision of a prtb adjudicator but I cant see how they would not be held liable if the landlord has acted correctly. in reality the damages may equal additional period of rent etc

Grandpa Hassan

kkelliher wrote: »

the cost of the landlord having to rent elsewhere in the event of their not vacating the premises in accordance with the notice under the act.

You beat me to it. That was what I was about to ask

Obviously if notice was given while the tenant was away, and remained away through the notice period, then it would be unreasonable to expect the tenant to comply.

But given that there is time to move out before going travelling, I think the tenant would be help accountable for rent expenses incurred by the LL between the 56th day and when they eventually get possession of the property.

Anyway, is unlikely to come to that, as I would imagine the storage solution would be attractive to both sides. 3 months saved rent would easily pay for temporary accomodation upon their return while they look for a new place

kkelliher

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You beat me to it. That was what I was about to ask

Obviously if notice was given while the tenant was away, and remained away through the notice period, then it would be unreasonable to expect the tenant to comply.

But given that there is time to move out before going travelling, I think the tenant would be help accountable for rent expenses incurred by the LL between the 56th day and when they eventually get possession of the property.

Anyway, is unlikely to come to that, as I would imagine the storage solution would be attractive to both sides. 3 months saved rent would easily pay for temporary accomodation upon their return while they look for a new place

agreed. It should be noted that the PRTB are slow to take a landlord or tenants position, ie on holidays, into account in any event as they deal simply with the 2004 act and within the scope that it allows and in this case the tenant would not comply is he was not out of the apartment by the end of the last day of the 56 days.

sunnysoutheast

Would the tenant not have an undertaking in their lease not to leave the property unattended for more than 30 days, particularly over the winter, and to keep it heated/aired, prevent freezing etc.?

Has the tenant arranged for somebody to "flat sit" for them when away, I wonder, in order to avoid paying three months rent for an empty flat.

From a legal standpoint I would say that the LL can issue the NoT and must then take a case to the PRTB for failure to comply with a valid NoT via overholding, assuming the rent is being paid.

Is this a real situation or hypothetical?

Edit: might not be a flat of course :-)

djimi

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Would the tenant not have an undertaking in their lease not to leave the property unattended for more than 30 days, particularly over the winter, and to keep it heated/aired, prevent freezing etc.?

Has the tenant arranged for somebody to "flat sit" for them when away, I wonder, in order to avoid paying three months rent for an empty flat.

Not necessarily. I think our lease says something about not letting pipes freeze etc, but doesnt specify that we cant be gone for any length of time.

odds_on

kkelliher wrote: »

it would come down to the decision of a prtb adjudicator but I cant see how they would not be held liable if the landlord has acted correctly. in reality the damages may equal additional period of rent etc

But would it be worth pursuing the tenant? maybe when she comes back from down under she will claim she has no money. She might overstay down under. And again, the LL will have to have her address when she comes back in order to make a claim as the PRTB do not provide a tenant's current address list.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Not necessarily. I think our lease says something about not letting pipes freeze etc, but doesnt specify that we cant be gone for any length of time.

I think most insurances also require that the property is not left vacant for more than one month in any 12 month period - or something similar.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

I think most insurances also require that the property is not left vacant for more than one month in any 12 month period - or something similar.

I find that a bit hard to believe tbh considering its not unknown for people to go traveling etc for more than a month at a time. If Im wrong then fair enough.

And what constitutes vacant in such an instance? If someone was coming over daily/a few times a week to open and close curtains etc would that count as a degree of occupancy?

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

I find that a bit hard to believe tbh considering its not unknown for people to go traveling etc for more than a month at a time. If Im wrong then fair enough.

And what constitutes vacant in such an instance? If someone was coming over daily/a few times a week to open and close curtains etc would that count as a degree of occupancy?

I'm sure you know what insurance companies are like - they will try to wriggle out of anything so as to avoid pay out. If there was a break-in and theft, for example and it was found that the property was not inhabited at the time.

And, I have seen lease agreement that state the same (possibly to comply with the insurance.

djimi

Ill take your word for it as I have no experience of house insurance (only contents insurance, which has no such stipulations as far as Im aware). While I can see where the idea is coming from it would be a strange restriction to impose, given that its not exactly unusual for people to go away from home for extended periods of time.

Faith

It's written in our lease that the house can't be vacant for more than 30 days.

the_syco

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

However, tenant is leaving in 3 weeks to go travelling in NZ for 3 months.

I'm assuming that the 3 months rent have been paid already, yes? If not, whole different ball game...

Grandpa Hassan

the_syco wrote: »

I'm assuming that the 3 months rent have been paid already, yes? If not, whole different ball game...

why would they have been paid already? It is just a regular lease, with no clause saying the tenant can't be away for more than a certain period

newbie2013

Faith wrote: »

It's written in our lease that the house can't be vacant for more than 30 days.

30 days all year or continuous. Say if one was away for 29 days, came home for few days then ****ed off for another 29 days, would this be ok ?

odds_on

newbie2013 wrote: »

30 days all year or continuous. Say if one was away for 29 days, came home for few days then ****ed off for another 29 days, would this be ok ?

My last lease had the same clause:
"Not to leave the property vacant for more than 30 consecutive days ... and to secure all locks, windows .... etc ....."

If the tenant is heading off for 3 months, she is unlikely to return to fulfil her obligations. She could, of course, organise some one to visit the property from time to time and stay the odd night.

As regards insurance in the same lease:
"not do or omit to do anything on or at the Property which may in any way prejudice the insurance of the Property or cause an increase in the premium thereof or cause the intervention of the police and or other government or council authorities"

Valentine1

odds_on wrote: »

I think most insurances also require that the property is not left vacant for more than one month in any 12 month period - or something similar.

Very common, standard in fact. House insurance for uninhabited houses/flats have much higher premiums.

djimi wrote: »

And what constitutes vacant in such an instance? If someone was coming over daily/a few times a week to open and close curtains etc would that count as a degree of occupancy?

Probably not, somebody staying over night for a night might count, 3 or 4 nights consecutively or within a week almost certainly would.

djimi wrote: »

Ill take your word for it as I have no experience of house insurance (only contents insurance, which has no such stipulations as far as Im aware). While I can see where the idea is coming from it would be a strange restriction to impose, given that its not exactly unusual for people to go away from home for extended periods of time.

Insurance companies will take any and all steps to limit their liability. conditions such as these are why people get their friends or family to house sit when they go away for long periods of time.

the_syco

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

why would they have been paid already? It is just a regular lease, with no clause saying the tenant can't be away for more than a certain period

Some people prepay to ensure that there are no problems whilst the're on the other side of the world. Example; if she's on the other side of the world, and she stopped paying (no money in the account, for example) I'd wonder how you could serve them an eviction notice?