Assuming a tenant gives a valid notice in line with the tenancy agreement, but won’t move out when that has expired, how easily could a landlord get a possession order using the standard route?
Are you aware of any legal precedents?
Many thanks
Question
Landlord Wants Tenant to Leave (England) | Tenant Wants to Leave (England)
Can landlord successfully evict on tenant ‘s valid notice?
Answer
View your previously asked questions. (Will only show questions from August 2020)
(Link above back to topic only works for questions added after end of August 2020)
5 Comments
Where a tenant has given a valid notice to quit, a landlord can simply issue proceedings for possession as soon as the notice has expired. No notice by the landlord is necessary because the ground for possession is the notice issued by the tenant.
Such a notice brings the tenancy to a total end and so rent should not be demanded (instead any money received should be for damages for the use and occupation of the property).
In fact doing nothing after a notice from tenant has expired is bad. A landlord must either seek possession or, give the tenant a new tenancy. Just doing nothing and accepting rent could imply a new verbal tenancy.
As a point of note, after a valid notice to quit and failure to leave, the landlord is entitled to double the rent until possession of the property is obtained.
Please see this case which summarises all the points outlined above.
Many thanks for your prompt response, Guildy.
I have read the case in your link, Thompson v Thorpe and Taylor-Thorpe Leeds County Court 13 December 2012 2QT33017, but I have one further question based on that.
In the article relating the case, it states that the remaining former tenant was “treated as a trespasser”, but my understanding is CPR Part 55 can’t be used for former tenants who remain after they’ve given notice, meaning the standard possession route (n5 and n119 forms) must be used?
That’s correct. We didn’t seek possession using the trespasser procedure but used the standard procedure.
They’re not technically trespassers when they remain, they just have to be treated as a trespasser.
I have just one further question on your article on Thompson v Thorpe and Taylor-Thorpe.
In the article, it states that sections 21 and 8 were issued on the tenant, and goes on to say that enforcing against either of those might have been an option instead of enforcing against the tenant’s NTQ. May I please ask how this would have been possible if the NTQ ended the tenancy?
It would all depend on timing. If the NTQ hadn’t expired, they would still have been tenants so s.8 or s.21 available. From recollection, the NTQ was first to expire so in that case, that was the best option to take.