The landlord was granted possession

[Alastrum]

Hi,

 

I really need some advice quick, if I'm to stave off a possession order - would appreciate anybody's input!

 

Two years ago, due to the recession, my business collapsed, and I got into rent arrears.

 

Eventually, things began to pick up slightly, and in addition I took a part-time job to guarantee that I could at least pay the rent. Although my income is now stable, it wasn't enough to clear the arrears, just pay the actual rent from month to month, with a little bit extra added towards the arrears.

 

Six months ago, the landlord (a property management company) gave me notice and sought a possession order, but agreed to stay the proceedings if I agreed to a schedule to clear the arrears by six months. The deadline was 1st April 2011. The landlord set a figure they wanted me to pay back every month, which consisted of the rent for the month ongoing, plus an extra £300.

 

I have kept to this agreement, but I find that, at the end of the six months, I am left owing exactly £2000. The landlord's solicitor has informed me that they are applying for the stay to be lifted if the full amount is not repaid by the 1st May.

 

I can't afford to pay £2000 out in one go by the end of this month: I only bring home around £1800 a month, and that has to cover my ongoing rent as well as all other bills, food etc. I have none left over for savings.

 

However, on re-reading through the original consent order and schedule, I see that £1740 of the £2000 I still owe is actually my landlord's legal costs (i.e. the bill of their solicitor). This means that only £260 of the amount owed is actually still rent arrears. I can pay that tomorrow, which would then bring all my rent completely up to date.

 

It seems they (my landlord and/or their solicitor) have confused and compounded the issue by conflating the rent arrears and their legal costs.

 

So my questions are: if (after tomorrow) I'm completely up to date with my rent, does the landlord still have legal grounds to seek possession? From my limited research, rent arrears is grounds for possession, but failure (note: failure, not refusal) to pay legal costs are not mentioned at all.

 

Also, am I legally bound to pay my landlord's legal costs at all? As the matter never actually went to court, no order was made as to costs. It was just something they tagged onto the agreement. What I fear is that, even if I am not legally bound to pay their legal costs, if I do not do so, they will still seek possession. Do they have the right to do this?

 

I've never had any other dispute with the landlord, and there really was no need to take the matter this far at all: they've been very heavy-handed about the whole thing. I never disputed I owed rent, and I've always done my utmost to clear the arrears, paying more on those occasions when I was able to.

 

I have lived here for several years, and am settled here. I do not have the finances to afford a move, let alone the disruption this would cause to my personal life and work. The area where I live has become very expensive over the last few years, and I could not afford to stay in this area if I had to move out of my current home. I really would like to settle this and just live in peace with my landlord. For that reason, I am prepared to pay their legal costs if it means there is no further bad feeling between us, and they will not evict me, but I cannot do it before the 1st May.

 

Where do I stand? After tomorrow, when I clear the actual rent arrears, can I ask for a separate agreement concerning the legal costs, on the understanding that it does not affect my tenancy?

 

Many thanks for any advice!

[The Mould]

Hi,

 

I really need some advice quick, if I'm to stave off a possession order - would appreciate anybody's input!

 

Two years ago, due to the recession, my business collapsed, and I got into rent arrears.

 

Eventually, things began to pick up slightly, and in addition I took a part-time job to guarantee that I could at least pay the rent. Although my income is now stable, it wasn't enough to clear the arrears, just pay the actual rent from month to month, with a little bit extra added towards the arrears.

 

Six months ago, the landlord (a property management company) gave me notice and sought a possession order, but agreed to stay the proceedings if I agreed to a schedule to clear the arrears by six months. The deadline was 1st April 2011. The landlord set a figure they wanted me to pay back every month, which consisted of the rent for the month ongoing, plus an extra £300.

 

I have kept to this agreement, but I find that, at the end of the six months, I am left owing exactly £2000. The landlord's solicitor has informed me that they are applying for the stay to be lifted if the full amount is not repaid by the 1st May.

 

I can't afford to pay £2000 out in one go by the end of this month: I only bring home around £1800 a month, and that has to cover my ongoing rent as well as all other bills, food etc. I have none left over for savings.

 

However, on re-reading through the original consent order and schedule, I see that £1740 of the £2000 I still owe is actually my landlord's legal costs (i.e. the bill of their solicitor). This means that only £260 of the amount owed is actually still rent arrears. I can pay that tomorrow, which would then bring all my rent completely up to date. Pay the arrears on the morrow dear fellow. You will still be liable for his recovery costs (£1,740.00), however, said sum is not arrears owing.

 

It seems they (my landlord and/or their solicitor) have confused and compounded the issue by conflating the rent arrears and their legal costs.

 

So my questions are: if (after tomorrow) I'm completely up to date with my rent, does the landlord still have legal grounds to seek possession? From my limited research, rent arrears is grounds for possession, but failure (note: failure, not refusal) to pay legal costs are not mentioned at all.

 

Also, am I legally bound to pay my landlord's legal costs at all? As the matter never actually went to court, no order was made as to costs. It was just something they tagged onto the agreement. What I fear is that, even if I am not legally bound to pay their legal costs, if I do not do so, they will still seek possession. Do they have the right to do this?

 

I've never had any other dispute with the landlord, and there really was no need to take the matter this far at all: they've been very heavy-handed about the whole thing. I never disputed I owed rent, and I've always done my utmost to clear the arrears, paying more on those occasions when I was able to.

 

I have lived here for several years, and am settled here. I do not have the finances to afford a move, let alone the disruption this would cause to my personal life and work. The area where I live has become very expensive over the last few years, and I could not afford to stay in this area if I had to move out of my current home. I really would like to settle this and just live in peace with my landlord. For that reason, I am prepared to pay their legal costs if it means there is no further bad feeling between us, and they will not evict me, but I cannot do it before the 1st May.

 

Where do I stand? After tomorrow, when I clear the actual rent arrears, can I ask for a separate agreement concerning the legal costs, on the understanding that it does not affect my tenancy?

 

Many thanks for any advice!

 

Pay the arrears (as above, in red) and request an arrangement to repay his recovery costs at a rate that is within your means, as you say, you have resided at the property for a number of years and so you do not want the relationship to breakdown after all this time and over such a petty amount (sorry for sounding so flippant on that point, but that is not my intention).

 

Hopefully your Landlord will see that the above is absolutely reasonable and makes perfect sense.

 

Kind regards Alastrum and I do hope it all works out for you.

 

The Mould

[Alastrum]

(Sorry, I posted this in the Legal Issues forum, before realising this was more appropriate).

 

Hi,

 

I really need some advice quick, if I'm to stave off a possession order - would appreciate anybody's input!

 

Two years ago, due to the recession, my business collapsed, and I got into rent arrears.

 

Eventually, things began to pick up slightly, and in addition I took a part-time job to guarantee that I could at least pay the rent. Although my income is now stable, it wasn't enough to clear the arrears, just pay the actual rent from month to month, with a little bit extra added towards the arrears.

 

Six months ago, the landlord (a property management company) gave me notice and sought a possession order, but agreed to stay the proceedings if I agreed to a schedule to clear the arrears by six months. The deadline was 1st April 2011. The landlord set a figure they wanted me to pay back every month, which consisted of the rent for the month ongoing, plus an extra £300.

 

I have kept to this agreement, but I find that, at the end of the six months, I am left owing exactly £2000. The landlord's solicitor has informed me that they are applying for the stay to be lifted if the full amount is not repaid by the 1st May.

 

I can't afford to pay £2000 out in one go by the end of this month: I only bring home around £1800 a month, and that has to cover my ongoing rent as well as all other bills, food etc. I have none left over for savings.

 

However, on re-reading through the original consent order and schedule, I see that £1740 of the £2000 I still owe is actually my landlord's legal costs (i.e. the bill of their solicitor). This means that only £260 of the amount owed is actually still rent arrears. I can pay that tomorrow, which would then bring all my rent completely up to date.

 

It seems they (my landlord and/or their solicitor) have confused and compounded the issue by conflating the rent arrears and their legal costs.

 

So my questions are: if (after tomorrow) I'm completely up to date with my rent, does the landlord still have legal grounds to seek possession? From my limited research, rent arrears is grounds for possession, but failure (note: failure, not refusal) to pay legal costs are not mentioned at all.

 

Also, am I legally bound to pay my landlord's legal costs at all? As the matter never actually went to court, no order was made as to costs. It was just something they tagged onto the agreement. What I fear is that, even if I am not legally bound to pay their legal costs, if I do not do so, they will still seek possession. Do they have the right to do this?

 

I've never had any other dispute with the landlord, and there really was no need to take the matter this far at all: they've been very heavy-handed about the whole thing. I never disputed I owed rent, and I've always done my utmost to clear the arrears, paying more on those occasions when I was able to.

 

I have lived here for several years, and am settled here. I do not have the finances to afford a move, let alone the disruption this would cause to my personal life and work. The area where I live has become very expensive over the last few years, and I could not afford to stay in this area if I had to move out of my current home. I really would like to settle this and just live in peace with my landlord. For that reason, I am prepared to pay their legal costs if it means there is no further bad feeling between us, and they will not evict me, but I cannot do it before the 1st May.

 

Where do I stand? After tomorrow, when I clear the actual rent arrears, can I ask for a separate agreement concerning the legal costs, on the understanding that it does not affect my tenancy?

 

Many thanks for any advice!

[Alastrum]

Thank you, I fully intend to pay the remaining arrears first thing in the morning!

 

Considering that six months ago, the amount outstanding was over £5000, I think I've done bloody well and worked extremely hard to get it down to zero: it's only the solicitor's fees that are still confusing the issue, and it seems rather unfair to evict me over these, when i still have every intention of paying them.

[The Mould]

Thank you, I fully intend to pay the remaining arrears first thing in the morning!

 

Considering that six months ago, the amount outstanding was over £5000, I think I've done bloody well and worked extremely hard to get it down to zero: it's only the solicitor's fees that are still confusing the issue, and it seems rather unfair to evict me over these, when i still have every intention of paying them.

 

Yes, Alastrum, (based upon your posting here) you have done a fine job.

 

Again, based upon your case reported here, in the circumstances, it would be inequitable for your Landlord to evict you, his legal costs are not arrears, when you make said payment on the morrow, the rent due will be up to date.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Alastrum]

Unfortunately, after reading the stickies here, it seems that inequitable or not, the landlord can still go ahead and seek a possession order on any grounds whatsoever, even if he doesn't like the colour of my hair! I don't seem to have any rights whatsoever, and as long as the landlord gives me 2 months notice, then I have to go...

[The Mould]

Unfortunately, after reading the stickies here, it seems that inequitable or not, the landlord can still go ahead and seek a possession order on any grounds whatsoever, even if he doesn't like the colour of my hair! I don't seem to have any rights whatsoever, and as long as the landlord gives me 2 months notice, then I have to go...

 

Ah, if he has given notice, then yes, that is a different matter, it was my understanding that as long as you paid the arrears up to date, then he had agreed to stay any action. Has he given you a notice, even though the rent will be up to date today (7 April 2011) 6 days later than the agreed date of the 1st of this month?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Alastrum]

Yes, six months ago, the landlord dived straight in with notice to quit, court proceedings, the lot, but then agreed to stay the proceedings provided I kept to the schedule. Now they are saying they are writing to the court to get the stay lifted.

 

Yet, if you look at the sums, I only missed the deadline by 6 days and £260. This whole matter could have been sorted out without involving solicitors, and it is only the solicitors fees that have made the problem worse.

[Ed999]

You need to consult a Solicitor, because your problem is not a tenancy problem.

 

By agreeing to a Consent Order you have agreed to a seperate contract with the landlord, in the terms set out in the Order. You therefore have a contract problem, rather than a tenancy problem. Thus the issues you raise go far beyond the sphere of a simple termination of tenancy.

 

The Court will look at the agreed terms in the Order, and consider whether or not - as a question of fact - you have complied with them.

 

You seem certain that you have complied with the terms agreed, but you are NOT the best judge of this! You need an independent review of the facts in your case, by an independent Solicitor. The legal effect of the terms you have agreed to may not be what you think it is, because the law is often much less straightforward than it appears on the surface to be.

 

If you have agreed, in the Consent Order, to pay the landlord's legal costs by a certain date, then you are in breach of the agreement - i.e. in breach of the Order - if you have not done so. Ultimately, the Court will decide what the meaning - i.e. the legal effect - of the Consent Order is.

 

If you have not complied with the agreed terms, the Court has a discretion as to whether or not to lift a 'stay'. It can continue the stay if, for example, you have been misled in some way by the landlord. Perhaps the position in regard to legal costs was not properly explained to you? Perhaps you were not legally represented at the earlier stage of the proceedings?

 

If you have not complied with the agreed terms, and if the Court is satisfied that you have no prospect of paying off the arrears within a reasonable time, it probably would grant a repossession order. The Court, i.e. the Judge, will decide what amounts to a 'reasonable time' in these circumstances.

 

A Court Order can be varied only by a subsequent Court Order. You will need the advice of a Solicitor as to how to do this, even if the landlord is willing to agree - which you have explained he is not!

 

You should be sure to be legally represented at any future hearing, as you have little chance of coping with such a complex set of legal issues on a DIY basis.

 

These issues are too complex for this self help forum - go and see a Solicitor!

Edited April 7, 2011 by Ed999

[Alastrum]

Thanks... just returned from the bank, where I have paid off the rent arrears in full. On the way back, I popped in to a solicitor for a brief chat. They weren't able to tell me if the landlord still has grounds for possession or not, but agreed it was wrong of the landlord to combine the two debts (rent arrears and costs) into one account, and that I should have been given a clear indication of how they allocated the money I have paid them. As the next step, they suggested I simply ask the landlord for a new agreement regarding the costs, and see what they say.

 

Incidentally, I also checked with the bank as to the possibility of a loan for 12 months, which is the easiest solution: however, it seems my credit rating isn't good enough to be granted a loan, despite the general health of my bank account over the last 2 years.

[Alastrum]

Oh yes, and I was not legally represented at the first hearing: in fact, I wasn't really given the option to attend. I was simply sent a copy of the consent order to sign and return.

[raydetinu]

The order would have stated the totals to be paid ( you should have attended the court to have your say at the time and agree payments etc.)

It is unusual for the court to grant costs to the plantif ( LL ) but do sometimes in addition to the rent arrears, but this would have been stated in the order.

If the rent has now been paid, they would have to apply for a section 21 repossesion now and give you 2months notice.

Whats the situation with any deposit, is it protected?

they cannot persue section 21 if it is not.

[Ed999]

I popped in to a solicitor for a brief chat. They weren't able to tell me if the landlord still has grounds for possession or not

 

That will depend upon whether you are currently in breach of any of the terms set out in the Consent Order or not. Which, as outlined above, depends on its terms.

 

Incidentally, the normal grounds on which a landlord can apply for possession under a shorthold tenancy - if that's what you have - are set out in this 'sticky' thread, from which you will be able to see whether any other grounds for possession might also exist in your circumstances -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?116385-Shorthold-Tenancy-posession-eviction-and-notice

 

 

Oh yes, and I was not legally represented at the first hearing: in fact, I wasn't really given the option to attend. I was simply sent a copy of the consent order to sign and return.

 

It is possible that this might incline the Court to exercise its discretion in your favour, if possession is sought and the landlord applies for the 'stay' to be lifted (removed), but possibly only if your right to obtain independent legal advice regarding the document was not explained to you, in writing, by the landlord or his Solicitor.

[Ed999]

It is unusual for the court to grant costs to the plantif ( LL )

 

 

This was a Consent Order, dealt with without a court hearing, by the tenant's agreement. The matter being dealt with by consent, with no hearing, the Court had no say in the agreed terms scheduled to the Order.

 

This is a point on which the tenant was severely prejudiced by being not legally represented, and might be a ground on which the court could be invited to exercise its discretion in his favour, if the landlord applies to court to lift the stay of execution on the possession order that has previously been granted.

[Alastrum]

Thanks for that, Ed: you are correct, the court was not involved in the consent order, and nor order was therefore made regarding costs. Me paying my landlord's costs was merely part of the agreement.

 

Also, I did read the sticky before posting here, but it makes no mention of costs. Now the rent arrears are all fully cleared, there is no other reason listed why the landlord may apply for possession. But does this mean they can go ahead if they want to, merely because they want to?

 

At the end of the day, I am not disputing any money owed, or the amount of money owed: all I really want is to stay in my home, provided of course I can keep up to date with the rent in future (which, now I'm working again, shouldn't be a problem.)

[Ed999]

Thanks for that, Ed: you are correct, the court was not involved in the consent order, and nor order was therefore made regarding costs. Me paying my landlord's costs was merely part of the agreement.

 

Also, I did read the sticky before posting here, but it makes no mention of costs. Now the rent arrears are all fully cleared, there is no other reason listed why the landlord may apply for possession. But does this mean they can go ahead if they want to, merely because they want to?

 

At the end of the day, I am not disputing any money owed, or the amount of money owed: all I really want is to stay in my home, provided of course I can keep up to date with the rent in future (which, now I'm working again, shouldn't be a problem.)

 

 

The reason why the sticky thread doesn't mention costs is that this problem falls far outside the ambit of that thread.

 

As I mentioned, when you agreed an Order by consent the legal effect was to create a new contract between you and the landlord, on the terms agreed in the Order, by your giving of your consent. You now have a contract law problem, not a tenancy problem. The Court can penalise you if you breach the agreed terms of the contract. The only questions relevent now are:

 

- what terms were agreed?

 

- have you breached those terms?

 

To find out these answers, take the Order to a Solicitor and obtain his advice. You will need to explain the circumstances to him of how the order was obtained, so that he can properly advise you. Take a printout of this thread with you, and tell him the points I have raised. Especially, tell him the possible grounds for objecting to possession, if a discretionary lifting of the 'stay' is sought.

 

You may be told you have to pay all that you have agreed to pay, for it makes no difference whether the court did or did not have power to make an order in the agreed terms. By agreeing those terms, something that you were entitled to do, you freely entered into a new contract, replacing the tenancy. The only point in issue may relate to enforcement, not to liability to pay: if you were misled by the landlord into signing without legal advice then the court is not likely to grant possession at the next hearing, but might continue the stay, possibly on terms, e.g. on condition that you comply with the terms of the consent order within a time limit.

 

It will probably not require you to pay more than the total sum stated in the Consent Order as a condition of continuing the stay. It might impose further conditions, such as requiring you to make all further rent payments on the due date. It might also make a costs order against you for the costs of the next hearing (but probably payable seperately, not payable as a condition of continuing the stay).

 

But you have not told me the full story. I am at a loss to understand your situation. If you have a shorthold tenancy then the landllord can, at any time now that the initial six month fixed period has elapsed, serve you with two months notice of termination, immediately or at any time hereafter. There is no appeal against a section 21 notice of this type, which does NOT depend on there being a breach of the lease provisions. It is incomprehensible that the landlord has not already served it.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Ed999

[Alastrum]

The initial tenancy was for 1 year, starting Sept 2007. When that came to an end it just became a periodic tenancy, no new contracts were signed.

I guess it all depends on how flexible the landlord is willing to be: after all, I've shown willingness to pay, and have cleared all the arrears. it's just the costs left, which could easily be cleared a in a couple more months. Added to that is the fact that this area has become very expensive lately, and as a result, very hard to let out properties: there are 2 other unlet flats in my block as it is, and the same applies to the whole area. From my own kitchen window I can see a flat that has remained empty ever since I moved in. By evicting me, the landlord risks not letting the flat to another tenant and thus earning no income from it at all. Surely it is better to have a tenant than none at all? But they may not see it that way, of course:)

 

I have just spoken to a solicitor: he advised me that legal representation would cost me a further £850 or so, but thinks I'd be better off just giving that money to the landlord, and trying to avoid court. I agree, and I'm not trying to get out of paying: I just want to stay here. The solicitor agrees that it's not a tenancy problem, but a debt problem, and thinks that if it did go to court then there is a distinct possibility the court may find in my favour, as I am not in arrears, and have been, and continue to pay. But he refused to be drawn on whether or not I'd lose my home.

[raydetinu]

Shelter may be able to help if eviction a real threat and may assist you in court.

[Alastrum]

I have now heard back from the landlord, via their solicitor. As far as they are concerned there are still grounds for continuing with the possession order, those grounds being the breach of the consent order. They are not prepared to make a new agreement over the costs.

And sorry if I did not explain it correctly Ed, the consent order was drafted as an alternative to the possession order going to court: it was "either go to court, or sign this consent order".

 

So I guess all I can really do is keep paying the costs off as best as I can, and hope that by the time we actually get to court, it has substantially reduced enough for the judge to see my willingness to pay and allow me to remain in the property. I cannot afford legal representation (unless I refuse to pay the landlord's costs: besides, I think spending the money on representation, instead of paying the debt, isn't actually going to serve me well in the long term, as I'll probably still have to pay the debt anyway).

 

I still don't seem able to get a clear answer to my original question though: am I going to have to leave this flat?

[Ed999]

I still don't seem able to get a clear answer to my original question though: am I going to have to leave this flat?

 

Except that, as I've said several times, that is entirely at the discretion of the court.

 

If you comply fully with the terms of the Consent Order, then the Court will not have jurisdiction to enforce the existing possession order. If you have already breached the agreed terms, then provided you remedy the breach by complying now it is still relatively unlikely that the court will lift the stay of execution. If you are now in breach, and are still in breach of the agreed terms when the next court hearing arrives, the Court might or might not lift the stay then, depending what attitude the judge takes to the various matters that I have previously suggested might mitigate in your favour - because the court has a discretion.

 

Even if you pay in full, the landlord can serve you with a section 21 notice immediately, giving you 2 months notice of eviction, if he wishes, because you have a mere periodic tenancy. See Shorthold Tenancy - posession, eviction and notice

 

You might ask the landlord for a 1 year fixed term, to run from a date in the near future, in return for paying his legal costs without further objection - though your bargaining strength is weaker if those costs are covered by the existing Consent Order because in that case you are pretty much going to have to pay them before the next hearing or chances are you'll be evicted anyway.

 

If the landlord is unwilling to offer you any security of occupation, you are probably simply wasting the money by paying him - but that of course is entirely up to you.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Ed999

[Alastrum]

Just an update to my situation:

 

Thanks to a stroke of luck , I was able to pay off all money owed on 19th April. I had previously been informed by the landlord's solicitor that they would apply for the stay to be lifted if I hadn't paid before the 1st May. Obviously, 19th April is well before the deadline. My finances are now stable, and the rent for May has also been paid in full, in advance. There are no foreseeable problems in the future regarding my ability to continue paying my rent.

 

I hadn't heard anything from either the landlord or their solicitor since, but today I got General Form of Judgement or Order from the court, saying that on 21st April the Judge ordered that:

1. Stay lifted.

2. The matter be listed in the Private Possession list on Fri 8th July 2011 at 12:00 noon.

 

I have no idea what this means: can anybody explain, please? Does this mean the landlord actually IS pursuing the possession order, or merely that they are free to do so if they desire?

[Ed999]

A document [i.e. an order] that says 'Of the court's own motion' or something similar, or which says the Judge or District Judge has made an order but doesn't say 'On hearing the claimant', usually means that the court has reviewed the case in the absence of the parties.

 

Write to the Court. Tell it that you have reached an agreement with the landlord, and state the agreed terms.

 

You evidently don't understand the difference between a stay of the case itself and a stay of execution. The case has been restored for hearing, so the judge has lifted the temporary stay in the proceedings; but only at the hearing will the court decide whether to lift the stay of execution. Or so I read it.

 

It does not mean the claimant landlord has renaged on the deal. It may be the court has acted on its own initiative, the parties having failed to communicate with it properly or at all.

 

Take a Solicitor with you to the hearing, as you are presumably not capable of coping at a hearing on your own. The court might call off the hearing if you tell it what has been agreed though.

[Alastrum]

Thanks for that Ed. I do suspect the landlord's solicitor of being painfully slow to act. I have drafted a letter to the Court, explaining there are no longer any arrears. First thing Monday, I am going to telephone the landlord and ask them direct what the situation is. If they say they're dropping the matter, I'll ask for it in writing, and then I'll change the letter to the Court informing them of that. If they say they haven't come to a decision, or anything else, I'll send the letter as it currently stands to the Court.

[Ed999]

No! For god's sake, no!!

 

You must SEND the letter to the Court. Your latest problem arises from your failure to communicate with the Court.

 

Whatever the landlord does, or does not, say: YOU MUST SEND THAT LETTER.

 

Good luck.

[Alastrum]

Yes, of course, I'll send the letter. But I don't understand what you're saying "No" too: are you suggesting it would be a mistake to seek some clarification from my Landlord as to what my situation is, or their intent? If so, why? If they do intend to pursue possession, then it's in my interests to get as much advance warning of this as possible, as I'll need the time to find somewhere else to live, arrange the move etc.

 

At the end of the day, I can't prevent them from terminating my tenancy, as they have the right to do so.