Thankfully, the law of appropriation is relatively clear and established. It was explained in good detail in the Court of Appeal case[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest'] Thomas v Ken Thomas Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1504 where at para 19 it was stated (author added words [landlord] and [tenant]):

19.  The relevant principles are accurately set out in Chitty on Contracts, 29th Edition Vol 1 at paragraph 21.059-21.061:

“21.059: Rights to appropriate payments. Where several separate debts are due from the [tenant] to the [landlord], the [tenant] may, when making a payment, appropriate the money paid to a particular debt or debts, and if the [landlord] accepts the payment so appropriated, he must apply it in the manner directed by the [tenant]; if, however, the [tenant] makes no appropriation when making the payment, the [landlord] may do so.

“21.060: Debtor’s rights to appropriate. It is essential that an appropriation by the [tenant] should take the form of a communication, express or implied, to the [landlord] of the [tenant's] intention to appropriate the payment to a specific debt (or debts) so that the [landlord] may know that his rights of appropriation as [landlord] cannot arise. It is not essential that the [tenant] should expressly specify at the time of the payment, which debt or account intended the payment to be applied to. His intention may be collected from other circumstances showing that he intended at the time of the payment to appropriate to a specific debt or account. ….

“21.061: Creditors’ right to appropriate. Where the [tenant] has not exercised his option, and the right to appropriate has therefore devolved upon the [landlord], he may exercise it at any time “up to the very last moment” or until something happens which makes it inequitable for him to exercise it. [I omit the rest of the paragraph].”

Therefore, if the tenant when paying the £200.00 says “this payment is for my new tenancy” (or similar) then, the landlord is bound by that statement. However, if the tenant remains silent, it is for the landlord to decide where to appropriate the amount (unless it can be somehow implied as to which tenancy the payment was for). Of course, the landlord should always appropriate to the previous tenancy because that way the new tenancy is developing arrears making the section 8 notice on rent arrears grounds easier.

Where an appropriation is done by the landlord, it would very wise to insert details of the appropriation on any receipt issued as this would assist with any questions that may arise later and would also help with any question of “implied” appropriation.

Housing Benefit

One unanswered question (by the courts) though is what about a housing benefit payment? The cheque or statement will always contain the dates to which the payment relates. Are these dates appropriating the amount to those specific dates and no other? I would respectfully submit no. Our view is that the law of appropriation remains as described above and that the dates on the cheque or statement are nothing more than showing the dates of the tenant’s “entitlement” to housing benefit and are not necessarily dates showing the actual “rent” being paid. It is therefore still acceptable for a landlord to appropriate a housing benefit payment to an earlier tenancy for example in our view.

[/amember_protect]

The significant changes mainly affecting landlords are as follows:

• Accelerated Possession Claims: £175.00 (from £150.00)
  
• Standard Procedure Possession Claim (e.g. rent arrears): £175.00 (from £150.00)
  
• On-Line Possession Claim (rent arrears): £100.00 (same as before)
  
• Application fee (set aside, restore etc.): £80.00 (from £75.00)
  
• Warrant of Execution (Bailiff fee): £110.00 (from £95.00)

In addition, from 1 April 2011 (so before the fees increase) the Tribunal Service is to merge with HM Court Service to produce HM Courts and Tribunals Service, so any cheques or postal orders paid on or after 1 April should be made to HM Courts and Tribunals Service or HMCTS.

A problem that this can cause is that the tenant attends the hearing and states that they paid the landlord x amount in cash three days ago which of course is more often than not a lie.

Although this article doesn’t get rid of that argument altogether, it is helpful for a landlord to remind the court of section 9, Civil Evidence Act 1995 which provides that the records of a business (which includes a rent statement) may be given as evidence “without further proof”.

A document shall be taken to form part of the records of a business if there is produced to the court a certificate to that effect signed by an officer of the business [s.9(2)].

Below is a suggested certificate for the benefit of members which may also be downloaded in word format. The certificate should be signed and attached to the court bundle at the point of commencing proceedings. If proceedings have already been commenced, then the certificate should be taken in on the day of the hearing.

[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']

Certificate that rent statement forms part of business records

Section 9, Civil Evidence Act 1995

I, the claimant hereby certify that the rent statement provided with the section 8 notice served on the tenant and the rent statement(s) provided to the court form part of the records of my business.

Signed …………………………………………………………………………….

Dated ………………………………………………………………………………

Civil Evidence Act 1995
9.— Proof of records of business or public authority.

(1) A document which is shown to form part of the records of a business or public authority may be received in evidence in civil proceedings without further proof.

(2) A document shall be taken to form part of the records of a business or public authority if there is produced to the court a certificate to that effect signed by an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.

For this purpose—

(a) a document purporting to be a certificate signed by an officer of a business or public authority shall be deemed to have been duly given by such an officer and signed by him; and

(b) a certificate shall be treated as signed by a person if it purports to bear a facsimile of his signature.

(3) The absence of an entry in the records of a business or public authority may be proved in civil proceedings by affidavit of an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.

(4) In this section—
“records” means records in whatever form;
“business” includes any activity regularly carried on over a period of time, whether for profit or not, by any body (whether corporate or not) or by an individual;
“officer” includes any person occupying a responsible position in relation to the relevant activities of the business or public authority or in relation to its records; and
“public authority” includes any public or statutory undertaking, any government department and any person holding office under Her Majesty.

(5) The court may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, direct that all or any of the above provisions of this section do not apply in relation to a particular document or record, or description of documents or records.

[/amember_protect]

Where a tenant wishes to leave during a fixed term, or simply vacates without notice, this is an offer to surrender. A landlord may accept such a surrender or refuse to accept (see this article for much more detail).

In the case that the landlord is willing to accept the surrender, it is best to have a notice to surrender from the tenants.

A suitable notice to surrender is available here

Notice to surrender by tenant to landlord guidance

Where a tenancy is running periodic, a NOTICE TO QUIT from tenant is normally more suitable than this notice (Guild Form F019, see this group of posts). This notice should only be used on rare occasion and you should contact us before using this notice to clarify the reasons for using this notice.

A few key points to note:

This notice should be used where ALL parties agree that the tenancy is to end, that is to say [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']ALL tenants and the landlord must agree for this notice to have effect. By agreeing with this notice, the landlord will be no longer entitled to claim any further rent after the expiry of this notice. (But if the tenant remains in occupation, damages for use and occupation will be payable by the tenants)

Anything less than ALL tenants signing this notice will render the notice invalid.

This notice is normally used where a notice to quit is not possible for example if a tenant wishes to leave during a fixed term (where the landlord agrees), or if a tenant has already vacated without notice and the landlord is seeking clarification that the tenant has indeed surrendered the tenancy.

If the tenant is wishing to simply give short notice (i.e. less than four weeks) during a periodic tenancy, a notice to quit is equally suitable because a landlord may accept an invalid notice to quit.

The tenant does not have to give any specific length of time with this notice so it could be an agreement to give one days notice or one months notice. Nor, does this notice need expire on any particular date.

If the tenants fail to vacate on the date given in this notice, a court order will still be required to gain possession.

If a landlord asks the tenant to sign this notice on the same date or before the tenancy is granted, it will have no effect [s.5(5) Housing Act 1988].

Completing the notice (in order of form fields)

• Insert name and address of landlord
• Insert names of all tenants
• Insert tenancy address
• Insert the date the tenancy is to be surrendered and the premises given back to landlord
• Insert date of the notice
• All tenants to sign, each signature must be witnessed
• Landlord to sign and must be witnessed
• Both landlord and tenant should retain a copy each

[/amember_protect]

Hi

I have just noticed the ground 1 download and if I understand it correctly it has to be served before the tenancy starts. Do you think it is worthwhile to serve it at the start of all tenancies (if the landlord lived there) just in case grounds 8,10,11 cant be used. Also I noticed ground 1 isn’t stated on the tenancy agreements, couldn’t it be added so a separate notice isn’t needed?

Also is it straightforward to evict using ground 1? It seems strange that a judge will grant a possession order just because the landlord used to live there?

Many thanks in advance

Answer

Sometimes a fixed term tenancy agreement can contain a clause which brings the fixed term to an end early. For example, you might have a one year fixed term with a break clause that states the fixed term may be brought to an end by notice after the first 6 months. (In my opinion break clauses simply confuse the matter. If there is power to end a tenancy after six months, [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']why not simply grant a six month tenancy and let it run on?)

Strict Requirements

Where the clause lays down time limits for the service of a notice exercising a break clause, those time limits are of the essence of the contract and must be strictly observed [United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Corporation [1978] A.C. 904].

A notice which is served even a day too late will be invalid [Quartermaine v Selby (1889) 5 T.L.R. 223]

To give an example on the strict requirements of exercising a break clause, it was said in Mannai Inv. Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 25 EG 138 that if the lease requires a notice to be served using blue paper, then a notice using pink paper will be invalid.

Sample break clauses

For a one off break (for tenant only) at some point during the fixed term:

“The Tenant may by serving not less than six months notice in writing on the Landlord or its solicitors such notice to expire on the third anniversary of the term commencement date determine this Lease and upon expiry of such notice this Lease shall cease and determine and have no further effect.”

[Mannai Investment Co Ltd v. Eagle Star Assurance [1997] UKHL 19]

For a break clause at any time after a set period (for both parties):

“The landlord or the tenant may determine the tenancy hereby created at or at any time after the end of the first six months of the tenancy provided one month’s prior notice in writing of such desire is given to the other party.”

[Aylward v Fawaz [1996] 29 HLR 408 CA (see below)]

Aylward v Fawaz [1996] 29 HLR 408 CA

Introduction

Section 21 of the 1988 Act  makes provision for the recovery of possession on the expiry or termination of an assured shorthold tenancy. The court must order possession if satisfied: first, that the assured shorthold has come to an end; secondly, that no further assured tenancy is in existence; and, thirdly, that “the landlord … has given to the tenant not less than two months’ notice stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house”: section 21(1)(b). There is no requirement that the notice take a particular form: see Panayi & Pyrkos v. Roberts (1993) 25 H.L.R. 421, C.A.

A lease for a fixed term may contain a “break clause”, i.e. an option given to one or either party to the lease to determine the lease before the expiry of the fixed term: see Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant paras. 17.285 et seq. A notice operating a break clause must be clear and unambiguous and is to be strictly construed. It need not refer to the clause in the lease but must comply with its terms.

Facts

On June 27, 1995, the plaintiff landlords granted the defendant an assured shorthold tenancy of a property for the term of one year. Clause 7 of the tenancy agreement provided that:

“The landlord or the tenant may determine the tenancy hereby created at or at any time after the end of the first six months of the tenancy provided one month’s prior notice in writing of such desire is given to the other party.”

On February 13, 1996, the landlord served a notice under section 21(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988, requiring possession of the dwelling after April 14, 1996. The landlord brought proceedings for possession of the property. The tenant defended the claim on the basis that the notice served on him had not validly determined the term of the tenancy in accordance with clause 7 of the tenancy agreement. The judge held that the notice was sufficient both to determine the tenancy and to comply with section 21(1)(b) and made an order for possession. The tenant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held (dismissing the appeal):

The notice served by the plaintiff landlord was clear and unambiguous; it indicated that possession of the premises was required, and the requirement of possession was only consistent with the determination of the fixed term of the tenancy agreement.

[/amember_protect]

A statutory periodic tenancy is what happens to an assured or assured shorthold tenancy when the tenancy ends.

One important note is that if the tenancy has a term to the effect that the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy after the end of the fixed term, no statutory periodic tenancy arises because the tenancy does not “end” in this case.

The statutory periodic tenancy:

(a) takes effect in possession immediately on the coming to an end of the fixed-term tenancy;

(b) is deemed to have been granted by the person who was the landlord under the fixed-term tenancy immediately before it came to an end to the person who was then the tenant under that tenancy;

(c) comprises the same dwelling-house as was let under the fixed term tenancy;

(d) is one under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed-term tenancy

(e) is otherwise on the same terms as the fixed-term tenancy. However, this excludes terms making provision for determination of the tenancy, which do not have effect while the tenancy remains an assured tenancy. [1988 Act, s.5(3).]

 

Periods of the tenancy

One important question is “what are the periods of the tenancy?”. [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']This matters because a section 21(4) notice must expire after the last day of a period of the tenancy.

The Housing Act 1988 states that the periods of the statutory periodic tenancy are “under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as those for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy” [s.5(3)(d)]

This was explained by Ward L.J. in Church Commissioners v Meya [2006] 2 E.G.L.R. 39: “… one has to ascertain first what payment of rent last fell due, in other words, what was the last payment of rent the respondent was obliged to make [under the fixed term], and then secondly of course, ascertain the period covered by that last payment.” [para 21][/amember_protect]

s 18 Tenants holding after the time they notify for quitting, to pay double rent.

And whereas great inconveniences have happened and may happen to landlords whose tenants have power to determine their leases, by giving notice to quit the premisses by them holden, and yet refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same: from and after the said twenty fourth day of June one thousand seven hundred and thirty eight, in case any tenant or tenants shall give notice of his, her, or their intention to quit the premisses by him, her, or them holden, at a time mentioned in such notice, and shall not accordingly deliver up the possession thereof at the time in such notice contained, that then the said tenant or tenants, his, her, or their executors or administrators, shall from thenceforward pay to the landlord or landlords, lessor or lessors, double the rent or sum which he, she, or they should otherwise have paid, to be levied, sued for, and recovered at the same times and in the same manner as the single rent or sum, before the giving such notice, could be levied, sued for, or recovered; and such double rent or sum shall continue to be paid during all the time such tenant or tenants shall continue in possession as aforesaid.

There are however strict rules that must be followed before a claim for double rent may be made. These were decided in Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd. v. Ballard (Kent) Ltd. [1999] 3 W.L.R. 57.

Laws L.J. states:
“…the right to double rent conferred by section 18 of the Act of 1737 only arises where (a) the tenant holding over after his own notice to quit is in fact a trespasser (thus, the notice must be valid), and (b) the landlord treats him as such. Any other case departs from what I regard as the plain purpose of the section…”

Though s.18 and Laws L.J. both specifically state that the notice must be “valid” a landlord is entitled to accept an invalid notice to quit. It is suggested by the Guild that acceptance of an invalid notice may provide an argument that the notice was “valid”).

One of the intentions of s.18 was to compensate the landlord should he have contracted a new tenant to take the property after the date specified in the notice, however there is no requirement to have a tenant in waiting to charge double rent.

Laws L.J. states
“…it is to my mind entirely clear that the legislature was concerned only to compensate landlords for the potential loss of rent arising where a tenant holds over against the landlord’s insistence that he should comply with his own notice to quit. I do not say that the section applies only where the landlord has a new tenant ready and waiting; the recital gives the thrust, but not necessarily the focus, of the section’s reach.”

Presumably, as the requirement is that the landlord treats the tenant as a trespasser, any request for double rent should be made using the words “mesne profits” so as to ensure the landlords intention is that the occupier is a trespasser. In addition, a landlord would be well advised to immediately commence possession.

Seeking possession

No notice by the landlord will be required because the service by the tenant of a valid notice to quit has ended the tenancy. However, a possession order in the usual way will be required.

You should contact the Guild for advice on seeking possession but essentially, it is an almost identical procedure to the rent arrears procedure after the service of a section 8 notice. It is the same court forms with some minor modifications explaining the reason for possession is because of the tenants notice to quit.

You should bear in mind that any claim for possession based on a tenants notice is extremely rare in the courts and therefore judges may be unfamiliar with what you are asking for. If an alternative method of possession is available (for example after service of a section 21) this maybe preferred.

[/amember_protect]

It is geared towards a non assured shorthold tenancy, however the principle is exactly the same so the first paragraph can be removed for an assured shorthold tenancy.[amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']

Thank you for your letter dated ….

You are correct that the tenancy is not an assured shorthold tenancy, however that is not relevant for these purposes. The Housing Act 1988 which introduced assured shorthold tenancies only altered the way a landlord gives notice (amongst other things, see section 21 for example), however a notice given by a tenant under any tenancy (including a commonlaw or assured shorthold) is still governed by commonlaw and section 5 Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

The notice to quit you have provided is not valid and in addition has been made to expire too soon. A notice to quit (without express conditions to the contrary) may only expire during a “periodic” tenancy, however the tenancy is still in the term certain and only becomes a periodic tenancy when that term certain has ended (should you remain in occupation).

“A notice to quit is a certain reasonable notice required by law, custom, special agreement or statute, to enable either the landlord or tenant, … without the consent of the other, to determine a tenancy from year to year or other periodic tenancy. By its nature a tenancy for a term certain cannot be determined by notice to quit…” [para 17.196 Woodfall Landlord and Tenant]

“The tenant cannot terminate before the end of a fixed term…” [para 3.020 Residential Possession Proceedings 7th edition]

Clearly it was neither parties intention that the fixed term of three years agreed by both was to be ended sooner than this, otherwise what was the point in agreeing a three year tenancy? I am quite certain that had my circumstances changed after a couple of months and I served you with a notice, it would have been frantically defended on the grounds that you have a three year tenancy.

In order to offer assistance in the resolution of this, I can confirm that I would consider any request made by you under section 1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 to assign the tenancy to a third party. Alternatively, I would consider any proposal for you to sub-let the property for the remainder of the term certain. It is most likely in both cases we would ask you to be guarantor for any third party but otherwise I can confirm consent will not be unreasonably withheld.

As previously stated, I do not accept your notice to quit because (a) it is invalid and (b) in any event, it expires before the term certain has ended. I therefore do not accept any surrender of the tenancy should you vacate on the date you have provided.

I truly hope we can mutually agree a resolution.

Yours etc[/amember_protect]

A short notice or a notice exercising a break clause must be given by all joint tenants. [Hounslow .B.C. v. Pilling [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1242.]

Notice to quit to end “on the last day of the tenancy”

Assured shorthold tenancy

If one joint tenant wishes to terminate before, or on the last day of a tenancy by giving a notice to quit, the notice to quit must be given by all tenants and all tenants must vacate before midnight on the last day, otherwise a statutory periodic tenancy will arise “immediately” [s5 Housing Act 1988].

“In the case of joint tenants any action must be on the part of all of them: 1988 Act , s 45(3) . This is contrary to the position at common law: Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478 . “ [Woodfall Landlord and Tenant para 24.033]

Common law Tenancy

Unless there is express provision to the contrary (for which see below under periodic), one of several joint tenants may [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']give notice to quit to end a tenancy on the last day of the term without the concurrence of the others and the tenancy will terminate. [Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478]

Note:

In both cases above, no notice is required by a tenant to vacate on the last day of the term, as long as all tenants vacate before midnight on the last day.

It may be possible for a provision in a tenancy agreement to require “if the tenant intends to vacate on the last day of the term, the tenant must provide at least one months notice…”, however it is not clear whether such a term would be enforceable.

Periodic Tenancy

The common law position of one of several joint tenants giving a valid notice on a periodic tenancy is that one tenant may give notice which has the effect of ending the entire tenancy unless there is a provision in the tenancy agreement requiring all tenants to give the notice. [Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478] (to see if notice is valid, see the section on “is notice by tenant valid?”).

A standard joint and several clause found in most tenancy agreements, explaining that the obligations are liable by all tenants jointly and severally is NOT an express provision that requires all tenants to give a notice to quit [ibid Hammersmith v Monk]. In order for a clause to expressly require all tenants to give a notice to quit and not just one of the tenants, it must expressly refer to the giving of the “notice to quit” by all tenants.

For a local authority (so not applicable to private landlords), it may be the case that to seek possession against a remaining tenant after another has given notice maybe a breach of  Article 8 and proportionality [Chesterfield BC v Bailey]

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Respondent v. Monk [1990] 3 W.L.R. 1144 House of Lords

The defendant and his cohabitee were granted by the council a joint periodic tenancy of a flat, terminable by four weeks’ notice. The cohabitee later left the flat and, upon the council agreeing to rehouse her if she terminated the tenancy, gave the appropriate notice without the defendant’s knowledge or consent. The council thereafter notified the defendant that the tenancy had been terminated and brought proceedings in the county court to recover possession. The judge dismissed the claim on the ground that one joint tenant could not bring a periodic tenancy to an end without the concurrence of the other. The Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal and made an order for possession.

On the defendant’s appeal:-

Held, dismissing the appeal, that a contractual periodic tenancy held by two or more joint tenants continued only so long as they all agreed in its continuation; and that, accordingly, in the absence of any term in the tenancy agreement to the contrary, a periodic tenancy was determinable by a notice to quit given by one joint tenant without the concurrence of the other joint tenants and the tenancy of the defendant’s flat had been lawfully determined (post, pp. 483D-E, 490B-C, G-491A, C-E, 492H-493A, F).

What if one tenant has given notice and the other tenant refuses to leave under an assured shorthold statutory periodic tenancy?

The first thing to check is, is the notice valid? If it is not, the landlord does not have to accept the notice and the tenancy will continue. If the notice is invalid but one tenant has vacated, the tenancy will still be an assured shorthold tenancy because (a) the tenancy has not ended because the notice is invalid and (b) only one of joint tenants need occupy the premises as their only or principle home in order for an assured shorthold tenancy to continue [s1(b) Housing Act 1988].

It is possible for a landlord to waiver a defect in a notice where all tenants have given the notice [Elsden v Pick [1980] 1 W.L.R. 898], However a landlord may not accept a short notice given by only one of joint tenants [Hounslow .B.C. v. Pilling [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1242.]

Assuming the notice is valid, then, the tenancy will be at an end. Assuming the person that gave the notice has vacated, his rent liability will cease and the tenancy will be at an end.

At common law he is under a duty to yield up the premises with vacant possession at the end of the term but the intervention of statutory security of tenure has reduced this obligation to one simply to do all he can to obtain vacant possession for the landlord. [ Reynolds v Bannerman [1922] 1 K.B. 719 and Watson v Saunders-Roe [1947] K.B. 437 .] The tenant who has vacated may be liable for the payment of rent or mesne profits up to a point, especially if he has made no reasonable attempt to provide vacant possession.

Because the tenancy is at an end, the person who remains in the property has no tenancy and therefore presumably no protection under the Housing Act (a court order is still required though because of section 3 Protection from Eviction Act 1977).

There are two issues that could arise when suggesting that the person(s) remaining has no protection.

Firstly, Section 45(3) Housing Act 1988 states:

(3) “Where two or more persons jointly constitute either the landlord or the tenant in relation to a tenancy, then, except where this Part of this Act otherwise provides, any reference to the landlord or to the tenant
is a reference to all the persons who jointly constitute the landlord or the tenant, as the case may require.”

This could imply that a notice to quit given under an assured shorthold tenancy must be given by all tenants because a “reference to a tenant is a reference to all person who jointly constitute the the tenant”. However, the reference would seem to be any reference within the Housing Act 1988. There is no provision within the Housing Act for a tenant to give notice (nor is there any restriction as that would be absurd!). The requirement of providing notice is governed by s5 Protection from Eviction Act 1977. It would therefore seem that this section only means any reference in the Housing Act 1988 and so should not affect the common-law position.

Secondly, section 1 Housing Act 1988 states:

1. — (1) A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured [shorthold] tenancy if and so long as—

A landlord should therefore decide quickly what action to take. There are two options:

1. Accept the remaining person as a tenant. In which case, the landlord should grant a new tenancy agreement to the person(s) remaining in occupation.

2. If the landlord is not satisfied with the remaining person(s) then possession should be sought as was done in the Hammersmith case above. It will be possible to seek possession on the basis of the notice to quit provided by the one tenant and the ground for possession is essentially that the tenancy has ended by the service of the notice to quit.

Claiming Possession after VALID notice to quit but tenant fails to vacate

Please see this article

Author notes

notes to author – add Case law accepting rent after notice to quit does not normally create new tenancy (but might in this case)

See also our guidance note on tenants notice and surrender[/amember_protect]