I think if you're assured shorthold, that assured period is, well, assured. This is binding on your landlord and their successors in title, and only a serious breach of the tenancy agreement is grounds for termination.
Even after the assured period, I believe 4 weeks notice is still required for the owner to serve a notice to quit if they don't want the tenancy to automatically revert to a rolling contract (even if the tenancy agreement doesn't mention this) or they wish to stop a rolling contract. That's the legal minimum, the tenancy agreement may raise this amount, even once the main part has expired.
After the notice to quit has expired, if you're still there, it (as I understand) still requires a court order to forcibly remove you. Depending on the exact circumstances of the tenancy (which CAB would be able to help with I'm sure) this may or may not be straightforward for them to get (as long as you're out of the assured period - that is sacred). Regardless, until that comes into force (not necessarily the date it is granted) you are under no obligation to vacate, and they are liable for damages if they try force or threat to get you out.
I suspect that the letter is beefed up to sound scarier than they can actually get away with. What matters is what the judge decides, and they will generally support the tenant.
So basically, they probably can chuck you out, but only *eventually*, so you ought to have *plenty* of notice.
It's also possible that that was a "solicitor's default last-chance-to-pay-or-repossession letter" and even if repossession occurs the new owners would be happy to negotiate keeping some revenue coming in until they have chance to dispose of the property themselves.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-07 08:36 pm (UTC)Even after the assured period, I believe 4 weeks notice is still required for the owner to serve a notice to quit if they don't want the tenancy to automatically revert to a rolling contract (even if the tenancy agreement doesn't mention this) or they wish to stop a rolling contract. That's the legal minimum, the tenancy agreement may raise this amount, even once the main part has expired.
After the notice to quit has expired, if you're still there, it (as I understand) still requires a court order to forcibly remove you. Depending on the exact circumstances of the tenancy (which CAB would be able to help with I'm sure) this may or may not be straightforward for them to get (as long as you're out of the assured period - that is sacred). Regardless, until that comes into force (not necessarily the date it is granted) you are under no obligation to vacate, and they are liable for damages if they try force or threat to get you out.
I suspect that the letter is beefed up to sound scarier than they can actually get away with. What matters is what the judge decides, and they will generally support the tenant.
So basically, they probably can chuck you out, but only *eventually*, so you ought to have *plenty* of notice.
It's also possible that that was a "solicitor's default last-chance-to-pay-or-repossession letter" and even if repossession occurs the new owners would be happy to negotiate keeping some revenue coming in until they have chance to dispose of the property themselves.