tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post3222336451214713714..comments2023-08-15T12:32:37.166+01:00Comments on The Landlord Law Blog: Tenancy agreement terms causing problems for local authorityTessa Sheppersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09661168506904640975noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post-78549399005983635972007-11-30T19:59:00.000+00:002007-11-30T19:59:00.000+00:00Ah but ... just because the tenant has moved out, ...Ah but ... just because the tenant has moved out, it doesn't mean the tenancy has ended. It's the same tenancy, with the same terms therefore, but just no longer secure.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the council is contractually obliged to serve NSP before ending the tenancy with NTQ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post-71527655226917070382007-11-24T13:00:00.000+00:002007-11-24T13:00:00.000+00:00There is no doubt that a landlord can, by contract...There is no doubt that a landlord can, by contract prevent himself from relying on statutory grounds for possession (Pollards Hill HA v Marsh [2001] EWCA Civ 199) but, of course, that isn’t quite the case here.<BR/><BR/>In this case, presuming that the “tenant” has parted with possession then, by operation of law, the secure tenancy has come to and end and cannot be revived. The terms of the tenancy agreement were referable to the secure tenancy and, one assumes, must also be taken to have fallen away.<BR/><BR/>That being so, I can’t see why the NTQ won’t be accepted. Lets see what happens!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post-50506543220462872702007-11-22T22:47:00.000+00:002007-11-22T22:47:00.000+00:00Ah. Oops. I've just posted a whole set of reasons ...Ah. Oops. I've just posted a whole set of reasons why dismissing the claim was probably wrong at<BR/>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/11/extending-security-by-tenancy-agreement/<BR/><BR/>I'd better add a new intro.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post-33427812467332892012007-11-22T21:31:00.000+00:002007-11-22T21:31:00.000+00:00I have a feeling the DJ adjourned the hearing for ...I have a feeling the DJ adjourned the hearing for a longer appointment to deal with the preliminary point, as he did not feel he could make the order in the 5 minute list. <BR/><BR/>He did not reserve it to himself however, so we may never know how it went in the end!Tessa Sheppersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09661168506904640975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22617683.post-42194792926915315432007-11-22T19:56:00.000+00:002007-11-22T19:56:00.000+00:00Very interesting story - I'll be commenting and li...Very interesting story - I'll be commenting and linking on Nearly Legal shortly. I can only presume that the Council had pleaded breach of tenancy condition rather rather relying on the loss of secure tenancy by statute (HA 1985), as no tenancy agreement can trump statute. More detail to follow on NL...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com