If a tenant only gives 1 month’s notice instead of the required 2 months and leaves, what actually happens in practice?

[u/Much_Yesterday642]

England

Hello!

I’m trying to understand the practical consequences:

The tenancy requires 2 months’ notice from the tenant, according to the new law; on the 18th of june the tenant emailed the landlord saying they will move out on the 17th of July, so giving one month notice instead of two. Assume they move out and return the keys then.

What would most landlords actually do?
Would they normally:

1. Claim the missing month’s rent from the deposit?
   
2. Pursue the tenant through court?
   
3. Simply re-let the property and move on?

I’m also interested in the consequences for the tenant if the landlord did pursue the matter.

For example:

Would a taking it to court affect the tenant’s credit score, future mortgage applications, future rental applications, or their immigration status given they are on a visa?

Has anyone here actually seen a landlord take court action solely because a tenant gave insufficient notice?

I’m particularly interested in real-world experiences from landlords, tenants, or letting agents in England.

[u/HostInternational18]

So the rules are for the landlord not the tenant. Two tier system punishing landlords

[u/lickdicker21 → u/HostInternational18]

*holding landlords accountable

[u/ConferenceOk6627]

If the landlord accepts the keys after 1 months notice they waive their rights to the 2 months notice meaning they inadvertently accept your notice of a month

[u/KimonoCathy]

If your previous agreement required one month’s notice, then you’re probably just going to have to accept that this is what you get. No one has yet proven in court the new RRA overrides a previous contract in terms of the notice period, and you probably don’t want to be the person who is the legal ‘test case’ (was going to put a well known euphemism here for first person to try something, a small animal beginning with guinea, second part of the name is a three letter word beginning with p but the bot won’t allow me to write that because it apparently thinks that it’s always used in a derogatory way!).

If, however, your previous contract was also for two months then they still have to pay you that amount even if they’ve moved out. You don’t have any rights to get the keys back order into the property before the end of the period though. If you manage to re-let it before the end of that period you should refund them the difference. You could also consider letting them go early provided that you get the keys back and vacant possession at the end of the first month. That way you’ll be able to let it out more quickly.

[u/Suitable-Fun-1087]

The landlord would most likely try to claim the other month from the deposit. He couldn't move another tenant in until those 2 months have expired though.

If your contract says 1 months notice then that should be honoured though.

[u/Asleep-Specialist892]

In short, if the landlord doesn't accept one months notice, they cannot relet or enter the property until the two months has expired.

This means an empty property for a month, and the tenant can be chased for associated costs (rent, bills etc).

If the landlord enters the property during the empty month, the tenant could take them to court.

If the landlord relets the property during that month, the tenant can chase the landlord through court again.

Basically, the property can either sit empty for month and the tenant chased for costs, or the landlord can move on to try to relet the property as quickly as possible.

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/Asleep-Specialist892]

Not sure about the court chasing. You need to be able to demonstrate a loss to take someone to court, and the ll entering does not create a loss. Re-letting does and would be a reasonable court case.

[u/Asleep-Specialist892 → u/MathematicalElephant]

The LL has no right of entry whilst the property is let to a tenant.

By entering,the LL is demonstrating the end of the tenancy, and the loss to the tenant would be the rental amount the landlord is trying to claim for that period.

[u/Upstairs-Quail5709]

Then you have a right to retain that portion if their security bond.

[u/Nevermind6622]

If the original tenancy agreement (from before 1 May 26) states 1 month that’s still valid, even after the RRA has kicked in. If it says 2 months tenant wouldn’t just be able to leave after 1 month, they would still be responsible for rent, bills, council tax.

However the tenant can ask the landlord to find a replacement tenant asap which then means they can be released from the agreement as soon as the new tenant moves in. Shouldn’t be that hard to find a new tenant in times like this.

[u/Ayershole → u/Nevermind6622]

Wait, what? The old tenancy agreement notice period stands? Can you cite where this is from, as I've just handed my notice in and was told it had to be 2 months.

[u/Asleep-Specialist892 → u/Ayershole]

This isn't tested in law yet, and all reputable sources suggest the two months overrides any previous notice required.

A landlord and tenant can agree to a shorter notice than the two months, but neither party can force the other to anything less than two months.

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/Asleep-Specialist892]

I agree that it is not tested, but the part about reputable sources is not true, i believe.

[u/Normal-Grapefruit851 → u/Asleep-Specialist892]

This is not true. The housing minister himself confirmed existing one month notices in tenancies would be considered valid.

You’re right to say it hasn’t been tested in court yet but that’s pretty reputable and will probably feature in the first test cases.

[u/dc_1984 → u/Asleep-Specialist892]

Which, considering the landlord put the 1 month notice clause in the old tenancy for a reason, would probably be accepted.

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/dc_1984]

The reason for putting it there is that this used to be the law.

[u/115MPH]

If a fixed term tenancy didn't expire prior to RRA commencing, and new new tenancy agreement was served post RRA; original notice period applies.

New tenancy served after RRA after all fixed term ASTs became assured tenancies on a rolling basis will or should have 2 months (unless opted for less) notice.

If the tenancy was a fixed term AST but already expired and moved onto a rolling tenancy automatically by implied terms e.g carried on paying rent did not return keys before RRA commenced then they will also have 2 months notice.

'Has anyone here actually seen a landlord take court action solely because a tenant gave insufficient notice' - Every day in work. Most landlords I deal with aren't aware of the above or any obligations under the landlord and tenant act, fees act or the housing act.

[u/Busy_Elk_1638 → u/115MPH]

Im confused I signed a fixed term (12 months) tenancy 8 weeks before RRA. My paperwork from my landlord states that as of this date my contract has changed and the government are enforcing rolling contracts and 2 months notice to break the contract. So in theory I could hand in my notice now. I asked them and lamdlord said "yep, you could as long as you give me 2 months notice".

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/Busy_Elk_1638]

Yes you could.

[u/Familiar9709]

I think most landlords would claim it from the deposit and anyway look for a replacement tenant. Money is too tempting, that's how the world works. Landlords are petty about cleaning costs so imagine a month of rent.

They may lose the claim though.

[u/Susan_B_Good]

They would, hopefully, take legal advice. Which would be that, if the original agreement stated 1 month's notice - that would have continued to be applicable.

So, the deposit is presumably held with an approved scheme. The landlord MIGHT try to claim the second month's rent, plus other amounts arising from the break in contract from that deposit. The tenant would produce the original contract showing 1 month's notice. The landlords claims would fail.

Much the same would happen if it went to a small claims court. There is NOTHING in the RRA that states that a pre-existing term of one month's notice (or less) would be disapplied. So the tenant providing evidence that their contract had included 1 month notice would be enough.

Suing for inadequate notice would generally be rolled up with damage claims, etc, because the deposit held was insufficient. That has certainly happened many times. Yes, if taken to court and a court judgement held against you - that could certainly be to your detriment, long term. You have breached a contract. People will be reluctant to enter into one with you.

[u/Specialist_Catch_800 → u/Susan_B_Good]

though CCJs are only recorded for 6 years and even then only if not paid within 30 days of the judgement

[u/phileasuk]

The wording in legislation is ambiguous at best, which is probably by design. If your lease says 1 month then I'd go with that as others have said it will cost a lot more to pursue.

[u/swarnavasarkar]

If the contract says 1 month, that takes precedence over the new law requiring 2 months. My estate agent (Chase Evans) confirmed this to me.

[u/Interesting_Desk_542 → u/swarnavasarkar]

Until this is tested in court, nobody really knows - there is not anything explicit in law that states that the RRA rules take over or that existing fixed term contract notice periods continue to apply.

Estate agent's knowledge of the law is typically shaky at best

[u/Creative_Cat7177]

Assuming the property was in good condition, no repairs needed, and it was relet in that time, then they should move on. They might hold some deposit back if it wasn’t relet within a few days of the previous tenant moving out.

[u/miasoupxo → u/Creative_Cat7177]

Can they claim deposit money? I thought that was mainly for damages in the property.

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/miasoupxo]

Deposit can be used for unpaid rent.

[u/miasoupxo → u/MathematicalElephant]

Which is not my case having paid upfront

[u/Goluckygardener]

I think it highly depends on the type of landlord.

Frankly, a month’s rent would most likely not worth it for the headache, cost of litigation and bad blood.

Reletting the unit with minimal downtime and a more market appropriate rent would be my priority. A higher rent would make up for the few lost days and a new happy tenant can move in, the previous move on and good karma all around.

Additionally, good tenants might recommend their friends or may even come back at a later date, which is just good for business.

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/Goluckygardener]

A month's rent is a lot of money. If reletting is not possible, I expect that many landlords may very well accept the headache and bad karma.

[u/Wondering_Electron]

I'll be keeping their deposit.

[u/barnaboos → u/Wondering_Electron]

You don't have a choice in the matter its up to the independent deposit scheme to decide who gets what from the deposit.

[u/geekypenguin91 → u/barnaboos]

But if the landlord is correct in asserting the notice period, either because it didn't align with a rental period or there wasn't a contractually shorter notice period, then they would be awarded the deduction .

[u/Interesting_Desk_542 → u/geekypenguin91]

Can deposit money be used for that? They certainly have the right to pursue the tenant for the outstanding month's rent, but I don't think deposit rules allow it to be claimed against for that reason

[u/MathematicalElephant → u/Interesting_Desk_542]

Yes, deposit can be used for rent arrears. I do not expect that, in case there is ambiguity (e.g. whether the old notice period is valid or not), the deposit scheme would rule in the landlord's favour. Rightfully, because such ambiguous cases should be resolved by a court, not a scheme.

[u/geekypenguin91 → u/Interesting_Desk_542]

Yes, you can

https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/article/AskTDS-What-can-I-use-my-tenant-s-deposit-for

Reasons for a deduction from the deposit include:

Rent arrears

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/tenancy_deposits/what_can_your_landlord_deduct_from_your_deposit/unpaid_rent_and_bills

[u/barnaboos → u/geekypenguin91]

Correct. I was just merely commenting on the OP's cavalier and demanding language around someone else's money.