What rights do I have - no contract

franktennis

Hi all

Basically my issue is this

Moved in June 2015 - Paid deposit plus one months rent

Landlord tells me 3 weeks ago he is putting house up for sale

I tell him fine and look for another place

I find a place yesterday and am ready to move in Sept 1st 2016

Landlord says I agreed to pay for September which I did not

I have not signed a contract with my current landlord

Can I just leave when I want to ?

RasTa

Yeah although sounds like he will try and keep your deposit.

franktennis

RasTa wrote: »

Yeah

And what about deposit ?

Baby01032012

Whether you have a written lease or not does not matter. After 6 months you have a part iv tenancy. As you are there more than 1 but less than 2 years You are required to give 42 days notice when terminating a tenancy. You can of course talk to landlord and mutually agree a shorter notice period. He is entitled to take a case to the RTB for compensation where you haven't given adequate notice.

franktennis

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Whether you have a written lease or not does not matter. After 6 months you have a part iv tenancy. As you are there more than 1 but less than 2 years You are required to give 42 days notice when terminating a tenancy. You can of course talk to landlord and mutually agree a shorter notice period. He is entitled to take a case to the RTB for compensation where you haven't given adequate notice.

He told me i had 9 weeks to find another place as he is putting the place up for sale

Baby01032012

As I said talk to him and come to a mutual agreement. He's given you 9 weeks notice. I'm sure he understands how difficult it is to find accommodation and will need to leave at shorter notice. No notice though probably wouldn't work and will most likely result in you losing your deposit.

Stheno

franktennis wrote: »

He told me i had 9 weeks to find another place as he is putting the place up for sale

So he gave you enough notice you need to do the same

franktennis

Stheno wrote: »

So he gave you enough notice you need to do the same

Well if he gave me 9 weeks notice to move is it not implied I can move when I want ?

Baby01032012

franktennis wrote: »

Well if he gave me 9 weeks notice to move is it not implied I can move when I want ?

Look at it the other way. If he wasn't selling and you decided to leave and gave the required 42 days notice. What would you think if he said - you've given me notice I want you out next week? You have to be fair to both sides. He's given you more than the required notice and your telling him I'm outta here tomorrow but I still expect my deposit back??

Dubwat

Sounds like you rented a place with no paperwork and no contract. Is the property registered with the PRTB? If not, he's on the back foot.

Maybe suggest to the landlord that you're not sure of your rights and maybe both of you should resolve the issue via the PRTB. That might make him more amenable to negotiation (& you getting your deposit back)?

Seems a bit mean of the landlord. He wants you out and you're going! If he's not registered with PRTB, he should let you go quietly and not ask for Sept's rent?

Have a look at this PRTB link about your rights, responsibilites and obligations

franktennis

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Look at it the other way. If he wasn't selling and you decided to leave and gave the required 42 days notice. What would you think if he said - you've given me notice I want you out next week? You have to be fair to both sides. He's given you more than the required notice and your telling him I'm outta here tomorrow but I still expect my deposit back??

Fair point. It's short notice but if I have seen a place I like and if I don't take it now it might not be there in a months time.

He is telling me I have to pay for September so if I pay for the place for September that I'm in now and then the deposit of a months rent and months rent in new place it wouldn't be affordable for me

Baby01032012

Dubwat wrote: »

Sounds like you rented a place with no paperwork and no contract. Is the property registered with the PRTB? If not, he's on the back foot.

Maybe suggest to the landlord that you're not sure of your rights and maybe both of you should resolve the issue via the PRTB. That might make him more amenable to negotiation (& you getting your deposit back)?

Seems a bit mean of the landlord. He wants you out and you're going! If he's not registered with PRTB, he should let you go quietly and not ask for Sept's rent?

Have a look at this PRTB link about your rights, responsibilites and obligations

Prize for most inaccurate and ill informed post of the day!

Registration has no bearing on rights of the tenant. A lease does not have to be in writing to be valid. Selling is one of the reasons why a tenancy can be terminated validly. Landlord gave more than the required notice. Landlord has met his obligations while tenant had decided to give him the 2 fingers and your suggesting tenant should be the one opening a case with the RTB. For what reason I don't even know.

It's so annoying that there are posters like this.

franktennis

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Prize for most inaccurate and ill informed post of the day!

Registration has no bearing on rights of the tenant. A lease does not have to be in writing to be valid. Selling is one of the reasons why a tenancy can be terminated validly. Landlord gave more than the required notice. Landlord has met his obligations while tenant had decided to give him the 2 fingers and your suggesting tenant should be the one opening a case with the RTB. For what reason I don't even know.

It's so annoying that there are posters like this.

I think as soon as he said that I had to be gone by the end of September that's when the search began for me. The house is going up for sale anyway so it needs to be clear soon. I've just been told the new place isn't ready until Sat week so he's got 7 days now but I don't think that's the biggest issue. With rental properties at a premium these days I have to look after number one.

4ensic15

franktennis wrote: »

I think as soon as he said that I had to be gone by the end of September that's when the search began for me. The house is going up for sale anyway so it needs to be clear soon. I've just been told the new place isn't ready until Sat week so he's got 7 days now but I don't think that's the biggest issue. With rental properties at a premium these days I have to look after number one.

Tell him if he doesn't budge you will cancel the new place and will challenge his notice of termination in the RTB. It might be months before you go. That should put manners on him. He is a greedy pup.

TheChizler

OP what's 42 days from the date you gave notice? Sounds like you might only be liable for a week or two in September, which isn't too bad. How much overlap would that leave you with information both properties?

Mrs OBumble

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Prize for most inaccurate and ill informed post of the day!

Registration has no bearing on rights of the tenant. A lease does not have to be in writing to be valid. Selling is one of the reasons why a tenancy can be terminated validly. Landlord gave more than the required notice. Landlord has met his obligations while tenant had decided to give him the 2 fingers and your suggesting tenant should be the one opening a case with the RTB. For what reason I don't even know.

Right back at ya re ill-formed.

Registration does have a bearing on how the RTB will view a claim taken by the LL for September's rent. (Or by the tenant to get their deposit back.) The LL is on the back foot because they haven't registered.

Yes, there's a legal requirement for the tenant to give 42 days notice.

But the law also allows them to mutually agree a shorter timeframe, and in this case it would be highly reasonable for the LL to agree this, particularly as the tenant has located another place to go within the agreed notice and in a very challenging rental market.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Right back at ya re ill-formed.

Registration does have a bearing on how the RTB will view a claim taken by the LL for September's rent. (Or by the tenant to get their deposit back.) The LL is on the back foot because they haven't registered.

Yes, there's a legal requirement for the tenant to give 42 days notice.

But the law also allows them to mutually agree a shorter timeframe, and in this case it would be highly reasonable for the LL to agree this, particularly as the tenant has located another place to go within the agreed notice and in a very challenging rental market.

Registration does not effect the rights of the tenant or the landlord as set out in the Residential Tenancies act. The landlord can be fined for not paying the registration but his/her case must still be heard with impartiality. Besides which, the LL can pay a small fine and register the tenancy at any time.

Yes a shorter notice period can be mutually agreed, but the important word is "mutually", it does not have to be. If the reason for terminating tenancy is valid (which selling the property is) and the period of notice is correct (63 days certainly exceeds the requirement), then the only issue may be how that notice was given to the op. If it was verbal then the op can say to LL that the clock doesn't start ticking on the notice until a written notice is recieved and stay put until then but miss out on the new property or, he can leave immediately and take the new property but has to pay September/forfeit deposit.

It might actually suit the LL to give a new writen notice of termination now for 42 days, that would bring it up to the first week of October anyway.

Baby01032012

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Right back at ya re ill-formed.

Registration does have a bearing on how the RTB will view a claim taken by the LL for September's rent. (Or by the tenant to get their deposit back.) The LL is on the back foot because they haven't registered.

Yes, there's a legal requirement for the tenant to give 42 days notice.

But the law also allows them to mutually agree a shorter timeframe, and in this case it would be highly reasonable for the LL to agree this, particularly as the tenant has located another place to go within the agreed notice and in a very challenging rental market.

I was the one who suggested agreeing a mutually agreeable shorter notice period so I don't know what your point is repeating what I said.

Re: registration. People have assumed he is not registered. The tenancy may be registered. No one knows. I pointed out this doesn't affect the tenants rights. 2 posters have suggested using non registration as a bargaining tool. I'd never be in favour of blackmail myself.

Baby01032012

4ensic15 wrote: »

Tell him if he doesn't budge you will cancel the new place and will challenge his notice of termination in the RTB. It might be months before you go. That should put manners on him. He is a greedy pup.

Posts like this are worthy of a warning.

Out of interest on what grounds do you possibly think the tenant has for taking a case to the RTB. Given landlord is in rights to terminate and has given adequate notice?

Suggesting Taking a case to the RTB just for the sake of it is not helpful to anyone.

4ensic15

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Posts like this are worthy of a warning.

Out of interest on what grounds do you possibly think the tenant has for taking a case to the RTB. Given landlord is in rights to terminate and has given adequate notice?

Suggesting Taking a case to the RTB just for the sake of it is not helpful to anyone.

The notice was not in writing and so invalid. The tenant has acted on it to his detriment. The RTB would award compensation.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The notice was not in writing and so invalid. The tenant has acted on it to his detriment. The RTB would award compensation.

Did you read the op's post? The LL wants him out at end of September, that still gives the LL time to serve the correct written notice now, or next week if the op doesn't pay rent for September.

The op is in a bind either way, if he doesn't pay he loses his deposit plus he will have left without giving notice, if he tells the LL that he won't move because the notice is invalid, then he has to pay for September and the LL hands him written notice which means he will be at at the same time the LL wants him out anyway, and if he stays he loses the new property. Look at the bigger picture.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Did you read the op's post? The LL wants him out at end of September, that still gives the LL time to serve the correct written notice now, or next week if the op doesn't pay rent for September.

The op is in a bind either way, if he doesn't pay he loses his deposit plus he will have left without giving notice, if he tells the LL that he won't move because the notice is invalid, then he has to pay for September and the LL hands him written notice which means he will be at at the same time the LL wants him out anyway, and if he stays he loses the new property. Look at the bigger picture.

The o/p is entitled to 42 days notice in writing. The o/p can challenge it. If the LL wants to close his deal he will have to do a deal with the o/p who could hold it up for years.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p is entitled to 42 days notice in writing. The o/p can challenge it. If the LL wants to close his deal he will have to do a deal with the o/p who could hold it up for years.

During which time the op has to pay rent and loses the other property?

Yes the op is entitled to 42 days written notice, he will also have to pay rent during those days. But here is the thing, if Op says the notice wasn't valid, the LL still has time to give writen notice and still have the op out in the preferred timeframe give or take a week.

In case you haven't read the op's post, the op wants to leave also without giving notice, to take up another tenancy. So neither has given valid notice it would seem but the LL still has time to rectify that with a written notice, at the same time the op will have lost out.

I know there is a lot of "ifs" but if you look at the bigger picture you will see the issue better.

As it would appear to suit both sides to terminate the tenancy immediately without either side giving the required notice, perhaps they should split the difference and the op pay half a month's rent to be deducted from the deposit. ie if there has been no damage, half deposit is returned, half is kept by LL en lieu of half a months rent.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

During which time the op has to pay rent and loses the other property?

Yes the op is entitled to 42 days written notice, he will also have to pay rent during those days. But here is the thing, if Op says the notice wasn't valid, the LL still has time to give writen notice and still have the op out in the preferred timeframe give or take a week.

In case you haven't read the op's post, the op wants to leave also without giving notice, to take up another tenancy. So neither has given valid notice it would seem but the LL still has time to rectify that with a written notice, at the same time the op will have lost out.

I know there is a lot of "ifs" but if you look at the bigger picture you will see the issue better.

As it would appear to suit both sides to terminate the tenancy immediately without either side giving the required notice, perhaps they should split the difference and the op pay half a month's rent to be deducted from the deposit. ie if there has been no damage, half deposit is returned, half is kept by LL en lieu of half a months rent.

It doesn't suit both sides to terminate the tenancy immediately. It only suits the o/p. The LL is trying to have his cake and eat it. The o/p needs to grow a pair and confront the LL. I would reckon he wants to close the sale more than he wants a months rent from the o/p.
The o/p can cancel his new letting and string out the LL and make life a misery for him.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

It doesn't suit both sides to terminate the tenancy immediately. It only suits the o/p. The LL is trying to have his cake and eat it. The o/p needs to grow a pair and confront the LL. I would reckon he wants to close the sale more than he wants a months rent from the o/p.
The o/p can cancel his new letting and string out the LL and make life a misery for him.

It's going for sale, the op hasn't said it is sold, there has been no mention of viewings etc. If the LL wanted a quick sale, he would be delighted to have the op out asap. He gave the op nine weeks, not the required 42 days to find some place new.

Why would he make his life a misery? What makes you think this way?

Baby01032012

4ensic15 wrote: »

The notice was not in writing and so invalid. The tenant has acted on it to his detriment. The RTB would award compensation.

You have no idea whether the notice was in writing or not. We have very little to go on from the OPs post.

franktennis

Baby01032012 wrote: »

You have no idea whether the notice was in writing or not. We have very little to go on from the OPs post.

I got no written notice at all just to be clear. House is going up for sale in October. I have to be gone by end of September.

davo10

franktennis wrote: »

I got no written notice at all just to be clear. House is going up for sale in October. I have to be gone by end of September.

If you refuse to pay September rent and tell him that notice is invalid, he still has time to serve you with written notice and have you out in time.

Ask him if he will split the difference and give you back half your deposit.

4ensic15

The o/p was given an invalid notice. He acted on it to his detriment. He is entitled to compensation. Why should he give half his deposit to the LL?

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The o/p was given an invalid notice. He acted on it to his detriment. He is entitled to compensation. Why should he give half his deposit to the LL?

No one forced him to act on it, he could still be there to 4-6 weeks. Even if the notice were written, the op would still require mutual consent to leave early (I think that was op's original question, can he leave any time he likes).

Ok, hopefully this will make things simpler. Op was told he had to be out in nine weeks, legally the LL only has to give 42 days written notice, which he can still do. If the LL gave one months verbal notice, and tried to evict the op, he'd be in trouble. The LL has not evicted the op, in fact it is the op who is leaving without giving notice.

Neither seems to have gotten this right so it may be better if they come to some arrangement. If the op follows your advice, he will have to explain why he left without giving the relevant notice considering he has not been evicted.

Again, try seeing the bigger picture rather than being tunnel visioned. The op wants to leave to take up a new let without notice, the LL wants him out in 4-6 weeks, the op wants the deposit, the LL wants the rent, both could compromise and move on.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

No one forced him to act on it, he could still be there to 4-6 weeks. Even if the notice were written, the op would still require mutual consent to leave early (I think that was op's original question, can he leave any time he likes).

Ok, hopefully this will make things simpler. Op was told he had to be out in nine weeks, legally the LL only has to give 42 days written notice, which he can still do. If the LL gave one months verbal notice, and tried to evict the op, he'd be in trouble. The LL has not evicted the op, in fact it is the op who is leaving without giving notice.

Neither seems to have gotten this right so it may be better if they come to some arrangement. If the op follows your advice, he will have to explain why he left without giving the relevant notice considering he has not been evicted.

Again, try seeing the bigger picture rather than being tunnel visioned. The op wants to leave to take up a new let without notice, the LL wants him out in 4-6 weeks, the op wants the deposit, the LL wants the rent, both could compromise and move on.

Whether he was forced or not he acted on the invalid notice. He only has to explain what happened. That is enough. Why should the o/p hand even more of his money to a grasping landlord.