What are tenant rights when new owner takes over?

A

arbitron

Registered User
Messages
534
A 10-month lease for an apartment was signed 4 months ago. The building was recently sold to a new landlord. The new landlord has given 5 weeks written notice to vacate.

Would the obligations of the lease from the original landlord have transferred automatically to the new landlord?
 
Open to correction on this, but I thought legislation had been introduced to prevent eviction just because owner had changed? If notice is being given on what is now a Part-4 tenancy then the new landlord can only do so under the existing terms?
 
arbitron said:
A 10-month lease for an apartment was signed 4 months ago. The building was recently sold to a new landlord. The new landlord has given 5 weeks written notice to vacate.

Would the obligations of the lease from the original landlord have transferred automatically to the new landlord?
Click to expand...

Yes, the tenant has minimum 16 weeks to leave, completely irrelevant if change of ownership occurred, whoever issued eviction notice either hasn't a clue of the rules or is trying to pull a fast one
 
If I sign a lease for 10 months, surely the 10 months is binding on both the landlord and tenant unless there is a notice clause in the lease?

I would have assumed that those notice periods under Part IV only applied where the term of the lease is not specified?

If either party can give notice, then the 10 months is meaningless.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If I sign a lease for 10 months, surely the 10 months is binding on both the landlord and tenant unless there is a notice clause in the lease?

I would have assumed that those notice periods under Part IV only applied where the term of the lease is not specified?

If either party can give notice, then the 10 months is meaningless.

Brendan
Click to expand...
A lease is meaningless as a part four supersedes any lease.

Welcome to a landlords world.
 
The Horseman said:
Welcome to a landlords world.
Click to expand...

Surely it's also welcome to the tenants' world.

They sign a lease in good faith and plan accordingly.

Then their landlord sells the house and the new owner kicks them out.

I would have assumed it was like a commercial property rental. The building is offered for sale with a sign "tenants not affected".

Brendan
 
The Horseman said:
A lease is meaningless as a part four supersedes any lease.

Welcome to a landlords world.
Click to expand...
That's not true. If a lease does not contain a break clause permitting termination in certain circumstances then it provides rights in excess of those provided by the security of tenure provisions of Part 4.

Section 58(3) of the 2004 Act sets out that such a tenancy for a fixed period can only be terminated for reason of a failure on the part of the party on whom the notice is served
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Surely it's also welcome to the tenants' world.

They sign a lease in good faith and plan accordingly.

Then their landlord sells the house and the new owner kicks them out.

I would have assumed it was like a commercial property rental. The building is offered for sale with a sign "tenants not affected".

Brendan
Click to expand...

Has it become a de rigueur use negative terms to any LL action (kicking) and moral high ground to any tenant action (good faith) ... ?

It seems we are moving to a situation where only the tenant can end a tenancy. LL is forced to maintain it regardless of cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top