If a landlord were to serve notice on tenants to vacate which in this instance is 84 days however one of the tenants was due to give notice next week of their intention to leave and this ntocie period would have been 56 days. Where does that leave the tenant?
Is the fact the landlord has served their notice first the mechanism which must be adhered to in this instance? Meaning the tenant could be held liable for rent for the 84 day period as opposed to the 56 day period?
Just to clarify, the landlord has served a valid notice, my query is in terms of the tenants rights here given they intended to serve notice next week themselves.
Also understand that the landlord and tenant may come to an agreement but just want to know where the law stands on this.
The landlord issuing a valid termination notice does not impede the tenant serving his/her termination notice with a shorter notice period allowed by statute. In reality if in the landlord termination notice it is written on or before a particular date, then the tenant is legally allowed to leave the dwelling at any date after receiving the termination notice of the landlord up to the last possible date stated in the valid termination notice. Of course the tenant would be expected to provide "reasonable" notice (which does not necessarily mean it should be in the formal manner required by the RTA 2004-2016) in order for the landlord to arrange final inspection.
How much notice would be considered reasonable? No definition and very subjective, in the worst case I had a tenant sending me a whatsapp message at 10pm saying "tomorrow evening I am leaving", I told him very clearly that this is not reasonable by any means since no one would expect a 20hrs notice to be reasonable (could not even manage to schedule my property manager to attend) and breaking every notice clause of the tenancy agreement (even for inspections it is agreed that a minimum of 48hrs should be given) so he had to wait for 2 days (I was really glad he was leaving, but he was clearly taking the proverbial p...) and pay the rent for the 2 days.
Any landlord who doesnt absolutly count his blessings that the tennant is moving on without hasstle is a fool.
Of course a tenant can leave early if he gives valid notice, there is no race condition on the notice periods.
Thanks for your concise replies. That answers my query perfectly.
In this case, the tenant would be happy to serve out their entire 56 day notice period so it will suit both the landlord and tenant.
Just to note unless they had separate leases the full rent has to be paid up to the date the last occupant leaves. So if one leaves early the others have to fund the leavers rent and the leaver won't get their share of the deposit back until the landlord has the property back.
Ok that's interesting
None of the occupants have a lease (although I know part 4 applies) and rent is paid individually to the landlord on a monthly basis. However there is no clarity as to how the house was originally let as none of the originally rents are there.
If the money was paid into the LL's bank account then there is an argument that you each have an individual contract.
However the easiest thing for the household is to agree to move out on the same date, the problem will be that if one has found a new place they won't want to be paying double rent, if you all can't agree you need to approach the LL togheher and discuss leaving dates and how the deposits will be handled.
NB NB try to arrange a house inspection now so that everyone is aware of the standards expected on handover day.
You don't want to end up loosing your deposit for damage a former occupier or other housemate did.
Don't foresee a common move out date is feasible. The tenant who was planning on serving 56 days notice is moving into a bought house and therefore cannot extend their notice period any further. The remaining tenants are happy to have the 86 days as they will need to find elsewhere to rent which we all know is difficult.
Landlord is generally ok but you just never know how these issues will play out. Condition of house is not an issue as it is very well kept and landlord regularly calls in.
Hopefully a conversation will have any issues resolved.
If none have a lease, who was the deposit paid to?
Something to be aware of; if a rolling contract was put in place, whereby when one tenant left, they'd get their deposit "back" from the new tenant, would the landlord will give deposits to any of the existing tenants, as he didn't sign a lease with them.
I'd wonder how Part IV operates in this situation, if the landlord wasn't made aware of the tenants assigning the tenancy to another tenant.
This is how I understand it to be. Deposits were paid to the tenants who were vacating (on a room by room basis). None of the current tenants have a copy of the original lease. Landlord was made aware each time a tenant was vacating.
Notice to vacate served by the landlord references the return of deposits so I don’t believe that will be an issue.
My query relates to one tenant who wishes to serve notice to leave which in their case is 56 days.
Does anyone know whether this tenant can argue that they rented a room in the house only by verture of the fact no copy of the original lease has been seen by the current tenants and rent is paid on an individual basis to the landlord each month?
This tenant does not want to be liable for nearly another’s monghs rent after their 56 day notice period and would like their deposit returned to them when their 56 day notice period is up
The tenant took an assignment of a room without looking at the terms of the lease? More fool him!
Thanks, very informative post.
The landlord is very unlikely to return any deposit to anybody until full vacant possession of the property is returned to him.
I am sure the landlord will be anxious to get the property back as quickly as possible. Can you negotiate with the landlord to agree a day that suits?
Just to update on this. Landlord has agreed without any hesitation to allow this tenant to leave early.
Seemingly they sounded very relieved that there was no issue with the notice they served.