that they must have agreed to the Landlord break usacle in the contract, and so were aware it was a possibility. Of course by law, the Landlord isn’t necessarily granted possession unless the court order is served bailiffs etc etc, but am I wrong in having the opinion that a tenant who doesn’t leave and subjects the landlord to a lengthy and expensive process to remove them, and so jeopardising the new tenancy, as well as their own credit rating, and most likely withholding rent for this period, is the party who is in the wrong ? I feel that tenants these days are the more unethical party and as such should not be surprised when a usacle they have agreed to is exercised. If the tenants had a change of circumstance and served notice, the Landlord would also be subjected to high costs and aggravation! Landlords will not reduce their rents to assist councils who are inept at fixing the deepest of potholes. The mere prospect is laughable. Unless the councils can strike deals with non-consumer landlords, they need to realise that everyone is out to get all they can. No wonderful Big Society is on its way any time soon… Just a rant? Most definitely. But thank you for providing such a wonderful outlet for me Gem