tenant has given me two weeks notice

dogbert27

Hi,

my tenant has given me two weeks notice (from today). The contract states 1 month and the rent is due tomorrow.

I'm expecting the rent to be paid in full for the month of February as that is what the agreed contract states.

Am I correct?

Askthe EA

dogbert27 wrote: »

Hi,

my tenant has given me two weeks notice (from today). The contract states 1 month and the rent is due tomorrow.

I'm expecting the rent to be paid in full for the month of February as that is what the agreed contract states.

Am I correct?

Doesnt matter if you're correct, I doubt you'll be getting the full month.

How long have they been there?

dogbert27

Askthe EA wrote: »

Doesnt matter if you're correct, I doubt you'll be getting the full month.

How long have they been there?

2 years 6 months.

I gave notice of rent increase to the current market rate (had not been changed since August 01st 2015) on October 01st. They paid the increased rent at the start of January but have today informed me it's too much and they will be leaving in two weeks time.

Browney7

dogbert27 wrote: »

2 years 6 months.

I gave notice of rent increase to the current market rate (had not been changed since August 01st 2015) on October 01st. They paid the increased rent at the start of January but have today informed me it's too much and they will be leaving in two weeks time.

Sounds like they are being responsible - they can't meet the higher rent amount so they have decided they need to move and urgently. It's in everyone's interests that the matter is solved easily. 2 weeks is short notice no question but if you're in a high demand area you should have no trouble finding somebody new (particularly if RPZ applies). Advertise the place for a new tenant and see when people could move in. Presumably you have a deposit (albeit based on old rent) to help mitigate any exposure.

Worst case scenario for you is they dig in and don't leave and stop paying altogether (or revert to old rent and you have hassle on your hands with issuing arrears letters and RTB tribunals etc).

Askthe EA

dogbert27 wrote: »

2 years 6 months.

I gave notice of rent increase to the current market rate (had not been changed since August 01st 2015) on October 01st. They paid the increased rent at the start of January but have today informed me it's too much and they will be leaving in two weeks time.

They must provide 56 days notice. They are liable for rent until the 56th day.

That being said, you must re-advertise and let it without delay. If the new tenants move in before day 57, the old tenants are liable for the rent up until the move in day.

You cannot withhold outstanding rent from their deposit and can only deduct a percentage of the letting costs.

pwurple

Question, Are you in a rent pressure zone?
If so, you cannot change rent to the current market rate.

Sleeper12

My guess is that the rent won't go through. They will most likely tell you to take it from the deposit. Of course this isn't what a deposit is for but they will most likely try this

Farmer Bob

They can’t afford it. Better they move out of their own accord than the alternative...

You should have no bother finding new tenants at short notice surely?

dogbert27

pwurple wrote: »

Question, Are you in a rent pressure zone?
If so, you cannot change rent to the current market rate.

No I'm not.

ted1

Endure the you have forwarding address , if you can’t rent it within 57 days or only do it after 14 days or say raise a case with the prtb against them. They are liable. Dick and tired of the one way system.

Surprised they didn’t try to negotiate.

dogbert27

Farmer Bob wrote: »

They can’t afford it. Better they move out of their own accord than the alternative...

You should have no bother finding new tenants at short notice surely?

Isn't that like doing business under a threat though. Accept that I'm breaking the contract or else...

I know renting is an emotive subject but it is a business transaction with a signed contract with terms and conditions.

Browney7

dogbert27 wrote: »

No I'm not.

Does their lease actually say they only have to give one month's notice to vacate - in effect you've given them preferential notice period versus the RTA if that's the case. Did you cite three comparable properties in your review letter to ensure it's valid. Assume the rent is directly comparable to neighbouring properties due to not being in a RPZ then - could be possible the tenants are doing a bit of horse trading hoping you offer to reduce the rent on foot of them looking to leave?

I'd be looking to inspect the property as a matter of urgency too if I were you - to assess if there is any damage beyond wear and tear that will need to be covered by the deposit and to see if anything needs sprucing up in advance of new tenants.

spaceHopper

Why are you so worried, if the rent is in line with the market rate then you will let it easily and won't be at a loss. Of course it they found somewhere as good and cheaper then you might have set the rent two high, lost a good tenant and need to rethink the rent.

LollipopJimmy

Looks to be a pain but there are many landlords on here who can't get rent out of tenants so at least you have a responsible person who is not going to screw you by not paying full amount or anything at all. Get it advertised, let it out and thank your lucky stars that you had a responsible tenant

Farmer Bob

dogbert27 wrote: »

Isn't that like doing business under a threat though. Accept that I'm breaking the contract or else...

I know renting is an emotive subject but it is a business transaction with a signed contract with terms and conditions.

If they can't afford the increase what can you do? Force them to stay.

How many landlords are stuck with no income while going through the courts to evict non-payers?

They're going, be glad and get the property on the market again asap.

dogbert27

Browney7 wrote: »

Does their lease actually say they only have to give one month's notice to vacate - in effect you've given them preferential notice period versus the RTA if that's the case. Did you cite three comparable properties in your review letter to ensure it's valid. Assume the rent is directly comparable to neighbouring properties due to not being in a RPZ then - could be possible the tenants are doing a bit of horse trading hoping you offer to reduce the rent on foot of them looking to leave?

I'd be looking to inspect the property as a matter of urgency too if I were you - to assess if there is any damage beyond wear and tear that will need to be covered by the deposit and to see if anything needs sprucing up in advance of new tenants.

I have a letting agent managing the property for me and they did the checks to verify that there were three comparable properties in the area to ensure the rent increase was in line with the current market rate.

I have instructed the letting agent to arrange an inspection as soon as possible if they tenant intends to leave in 2 weeks.

I have pictures from November that show that both front and back gardens have not been maintained. This was specified in the lease so I will need to get someone in to do this work.

dogbert27

spaceHopper wrote: »

Why are you so worried, if the rent is in line with the market rate then you will let it easily and won't be at a loss. Of course it they found somewhere as good and cheaper then you might have set the rent two high, lost a good tenant and need to rethink the rent.

As per previous post I asked for the current market rate against three comparable properties.

My main concern is that I will not receive any rent tomorrow as expected for the month of February and that they assume their initial deposit will cover the rent which is not what the deposit is for.

Browney7

dogbert27 wrote: »

I have a letting agent managing the property for me and they did the checks to verify that there were three comparable properties in the area to ensure the rent increase was in line with the current market rate.

I have instructed the letting agent to arrange an inspection as soon as possible if they tenant intends to leave in 2 weeks.

I have pictures from November that show that both front and back gardens have not been maintained. This was specified in the lease so I will need to get someone in to do this work.

The reason I asked about the three properties is to ensure they were cited on the review letter the tenant received (I assume they were but some agents are poor and don't know their a4se from their elbow). If the review letter isn't valid and you aim to go to the RTB to pursue arrears (up to you if you want to pursue for two weeks arrears) and then the review is deemed invalid you open a Pandora's box.

You'd have had to have provided lawn mowing equipments to tenants for them to be responsible for the garden upkeep.

If rent isn't paid you'll have to wait a few days to issues arrears notices.

Browney7

OSI wrote: »

RTA does not define minimum notice periods for the tenant to give for termination of lease, only for the Landlord.

Section 66 table 2 says otherwise I thought?

dogbert27

Browney7 wrote: »

The reason I asked about the three properties is to ensure they were cited on the review letter the tenant received (I assume they were but some agents are poor and don't know their a4se from their elbow). If the review letter isn't valid and you aim to go to the RTB to pursue arrears (up to you if you want to pursue for two weeks arrears) and then the review is deemed invalid you open a Pandora's box.

You'd have had to have provided lawn mowing equipments to tenants for them to be responsible for the garden upkeep.

If rent isn't paid you'll have to wait a few days to issues arrears notices.

Have a shed full of required garden equipment. Although after 2 and a half years I'll need to get those inspected for a new tenant.

Askthe EA

OSI wrote: »

RTA does not define minimum notice periods for the tenant to give for termination of lease, only for the Landlord.

Yes they do:

TABLE 2

Termination by Tenant

Duration of Tenancy

Notice Period

(1)

(2)

Less than 6 months

28 days

6 or more months but less than 1 year

35 days

1 year or more but less than 2 years

42 days

2 or more years

56 days

dogbert27

Askthe EA wrote: »

Yes they do:

TABLE 2

Termination by Tenant

Duration of Tenancy

Notice Period

(1)

(2)

Less than 6 months

28 days

6 or more months but less than 1 year

35 days

1 year or more but less than 2 years

42 days

2 or more years

56 days

I just checked my lease and this is in there. So in theory he has to give 56 days notice so I would not be unreasonable expecting him to pay at least the full month of February.

Askthe EA

dogbert27 wrote: »

I just checked my lease and this is in there. So in theory he has to give 56 days notice so I would not be unreasonable expecting him to pay at least the full month of February.

You would not. Still dont think you'll get anymore than the two weeks if you're lucky.

dogbert27

Askthe EA wrote: »

You would not. Still dont think you'll get anymore than the two weeks if you're lucky.

Yeah that's why I ended up posting originally as I don't expect to get any rent payment for February and that they'll leave the deposit behind.

So I'll be down on rent and I have to spend money on repairs.

On the other hand I could just be worrying about nothing but why give two weeks notice?

Browney7

dogbert27 wrote: »

Yeah that's why I ended up posting originally as I don't expect to get any rent payment for February and that they'll leave the deposit behind.

So I'll be down on rent and I have to spend money on repairs.

On the other hand I could just be worrying about nothing but why give two weeks notice?

Probably because they've secure somewhere else and have to move in in two weeks

Farmer Bob

dogbert27 wrote: »

I know renting is an emotive subject but it is a business transaction with a signed contract with terms and conditions.

It's a business transaction for you, but for your tenants the property they rent is their home.

I can see why they did what they did. They couldn't afford the increase and found another place to live because having a roof over their heads is *the* most important thing for them, and your business considerations understandably came second.

They gave you half the notice they should have, but hey, you're lucky they gave you any notice at all. They could have just packed their stuff and left in the night.

dogbert27 wrote:

So I'll be down on rent and I have to spend money on repairs.

Repairs and wear/tear are a fact of life in renting. You haven't seen the property yet, so you don't know what needs doing. Don't you budget for these things anyway?

dogbert27 wrote:

Have a shed full of required garden equipment. Although after 2 and a half years I'll need to get those inspected for a new tenant

Yeah you will. Again, a fact of life and nothing to do with the current situation. You wouldn't want a new tenant suing you after being injured by a piece of faulty garden equipment...

If this whole thing bugs you so badly, why not pay a solicitor for half an hour of his time and see where you really stand, rather than asking for speculation here? Let us know how you get on

dogbert27

Farmer Bob wrote: »

It's a business transaction for you, but for your tenants the property they rent is their home.

I can see why they did what they did. They couldn't afford the increase and found another place to live because having a roof over their heads is *the* most important thing for them, and your business considerations understandably came second.

They gave you half the notice they should have, but hey, you're lucky they gave you any notice at all. They could have just packed their stuff and left in the night.



Repairs and wear/tear are a fact of life in renting. You haven't seen the property yet, so you don't know what needs doing. Don't you budget for these things anyway?



Yeah you will. Again, a fact of life and nothing to do with the current situation. You wouldn't want a new tenant suing you after being injured by a piece of faulty garden equipment...

If this whole thing bugs you so badly, why not pay a solicitor for half an hour of his time and see where you really stand, rather than asking for speculation here? Let us know how you get on

Actually they didn't. As I pointed out previously the lease states 56 days as they are there over 2 years.

I can tell from your tone where you sit with regard landlords and tenants so there's no point in discussing further.

lifeandtimes

dogbert27 wrote: »

Actually they didn't. As I pointed out previously the lease states 56 days as they are there over 2 years.

I can tell from your tone where you sit with regard landlords and tenants so there's no point in discussing further.

I found their tone to be pretty fair and straight forward (albeit incorrect about the notice period)

As a landlord you need to have the deposit set aside to return to the tennents at the end of their residency so realistically you should be preparing for this from day one.

Yes they are giving you less notice but as you know the market is tough and they clearly need to be out of lose their new place and as you raised the price they can't afford it anymore and need to leave. No normal person will sit out a notice period at a higher rate that they cant afford and you can have someone in there within 2 weeks time no problem so you won't be down money

Lumen

Whilst you are legally right about the notice period, if you come out of this with a higher paying tenant who maintains the gardens and they come out of this having found somewhere they can afford, then isn't everyone pretty much OK?

dennyk

At this point I would just cut your losses, if you even have any. Yes, the tenant legally owes you for 56 days of rent (or for however long it takes you to fill the vacancy; remember that you must make a good-faith effort to do so) and it's ****ty of them to fail to give you the notice that they agreed to and that the law requires. However, you can take outstanding rent owed out of their deposit, so that will cover at least some of what they owe. Heck, assuming their deposit was at least a month's rent and they didn't leave any damage aside from ordinary wear and tear (which couldn't be charged to their deposit anyway), you might even come out even unless it takes an unusually long time to find a new tenant for some reason.

On the plus side, your current tenant who can't afford the new rent will be out of your place and it'll be vacant and ready for a new one who's ready, willing, and able to pay market rate; not the worst possible outcome by any means, even if you do end up losing out on a few weeks of rent payments in the end. I mean, it's certainly better than the darkest timeline alternative where your current tenant says "soz m8, can't afford the rent no more" and quits paying you entirely while refusing to vacate the property for the next year or more as you go through the costly legal process of evicting them...

the_syco

dogbert27 wrote: »

No I'm not.

Whack up the rent whilst you're not.

dogbert27 wrote: »

My main concern is that I will not receive any rent tomorrow as expected for the month of February and that they assume their initial deposit will cover the rent which is not what the deposit is for.

If the rent isn't in, pop over and arrange to do a check of the property inside within the next 48 hours; if they don't bother with what you can see, I wonder how the house is what you can't see?