licensee vs tenant

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    It's gone now, but it was terrible English.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #62
      strange..... the owner of the agency came round the other day to 'have a chat' with me.... slightly confused as to why he came round. Are agencies supposed to do that? let alone the owner...?

      wanted to know my situation etc etc and seemed like he was trying to 'understand' and pull on heart strings a bit...

      he said if it were to go to court/possession etc, that would be around 2-3k, which he doesnt want to do -


      he also said that he has a contract with the 'landlord' stating that the landlord doesnt want to accept DSS. (so is the agency not in breach of this also?)

      However, he said to me that as long as payments from my end keep coming through everything should be fine/ and/or he will cover it? It sounded like he was giving me some sort of 'clemency/leniency' of some sort for 1-3 months....


      All sounds a bit here and there to me....

      Comment


        #63
        Ask him (email or letter, summarizing your points above) to confirm all this in writing and agent to copy to landlord.

        DSS was dissolved in 2001 - see
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...United_Kingdom)


        Agent (or landlord or indeed anyone else..) is permitted to ASK to come round for a chat but you don't have to agree.

        Agent and/or landlord have right to inspect, but that doesn't include "chat" and is to inspect to ensure the place is OK for you, not to complain about how you are living.
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #64
          At least the agent recognises that to evict you they'll have to go to court.
          Which would normally cost you somewhere between three and four hundred pounds.

          That indicates that they have realised it's a tenancy of some kind, because you don't need to go to court to evict a lodger.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #65
            can i just re-confirm again with you guys... Due to a 'sham agreement' that means that effectively, in the court of law there is no legible standing agreement/contract at present?

            I would like to confirm what is the legal/rental basis on this? I know someone said in here you still need to pay your rent, but on WHAT basis is this on as there is no legal contract in place.....?



            And secondly, under what acts or statutes is there where the agency keeps attending the property without prior warning to talk to the tenant regarding their situation? My friend sent me a link with regards to 'right to live in quiet enjoyment'. I believe I have a basis for this, as I am unaware of an agency that constantly comes round to talk to a tenant about their 'financial/rental' situation.... That should be done in writing/e-mail.



            Many thanks for your help again!

            Comment


              #66
              There doesn't have to be a written agreement for an AST contract to exist. Moving in and paying rent is probably enough to form the contract. I suspect that the courts would interpret a sham licence as though it were an AST, and would therefore treat those parts of it which were incompatible with an AST as void.

              Assuming that you really have an AST, frequent unannounced visits could amount to an attempt at illegal eviction, which is a criminal offence.

              Comment


                #67
                I would say the visits have happened at least three times now since around march (when i posted). solely comes around to talk to me about my situation and when will i be paying the rent and leaves..... it is highly annoying now. Clearly all this is done to circumvent something.... Why couldnt this be done in writing? This is what I want to untangle and have as a legal standing/basis for myself, in the event or actuality it were to go to court....

                Comment


                  #68
                  You could refuse him entry and/or change the locks, although you should put the old one back when you leave.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    There are two elements to this.

                    There's a tenancy because you have exclusive possession a property (or part of it and access to common areas) and owe rent as a consequence.

                    What the other terms are for that tenancy would be in a tenancy agreement. So the agreement that you have is the nearest thing to that, and, while some of the terms that conflict with the law would be invalid (such as the notice periods), it's unlikely that the whole thing is void. The rent is likely to be set in that agreement, for example.

                    You can exclude the landlord or agent from your room, but not from the common areas.
                    Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
                    You could refuse him entry and/or change the locks, although you should put the old one back when you leave.
                    You can only change the lock on the room, the landlord or agent is allowed into the common areas without notice.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      There are two elements to this.

                      There's a tenancy because you have exclusive possession a property (or part of it and access to common areas) and owe rent as a consequence.

                      What the other terms are for that tenancy would be in a tenancy agreement. So the agreement that you have is the nearest thing to that, and, while some of the terms that conflict with the law would be invalid (such as the notice periods), it's unlikely that the whole thing is void. The rent is likely to be set in that agreement, for example.

                      You can exclude the landlord or agent from your room, but not from the common areas.
                      You can only change the lock on the room, the landlord or agent is allowed into the common areas without notice.


                      It does state the monthly rent in the tenancy agreement. So if this were to go to court I would still be liable to pay the rent from 'said date up to said date'?


                      exactly how would the agency evict me currently? only from the court? If this were to go to court and I divuldged all my findings with regards to deposit not being protected, agency coming into the property numerous times and it being a 'sham agreement', would that be adequate levarage?

                      Thanks,

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Assuming we're right and it's really an AST...

                        You are obliged to pay rent and can't leave during the fixed term (unless a court decides you can). That doesn't change because it's not a licence.

                        The landlord (or agent, I won't keep typing both, they're interchangeable as far as you're concerned) can only give you valid notice if a number of things are sorted out (unless you stop paying rent or break the agreement in some way).

                        If your deposit wasn't protected, they'll have to return that to you before they can serve notice (even if they have subsequently protected it), there are a lot of documents they haven't provided, which they'd have to provide.

                        They'd have to wait until the tenancy was into it's fourth month at least, and give at least two month's notice.
                        If you didn't leave at the end of the notice period, they would have to go court (which takes a while), have got everything right (if you choose to defend the case) and then wait for bailiffs to come and remove you.

                        That takes months (and costs you three or four hundred pounds in legal fees and bailiff fees).

                        Nothing about the sham agreement would protect you from any of that, because by serving the notice, they'd be admitting the current agreement is wrong, which they'd simply say was a mistake.
                        It would probably keep the judge sympathetic, but if the notice has been served and everything else has been sorted out (deposit/documents etc) the legal process only ends up one way.

                        The more practical downside is that the landlord gets so hacked off that they decide it's worth risking the fine to illegally evict you and just locks you out. That's (obviously) illegal, but it happens.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          The more practical downside is that the landlord gets so hacked off that they decide it's worth risking the fine to illegally evict you and just locks you out. That's (obviously) illegal, but it happens.
                          And criminal prosecution?

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                            And criminal prosecution?
                            The criminal prosecution (if it happens) would normally result in a fine.
                            Then, the tenant could also sue the landlord.

                            The practical difficulty is in persuading a council to prosecute - it's very expensive for a council to take that kind of action, and they have to be vey confident they'll succeed.
                            Many tenancies where there is an illegal eviction don't have the kind of tenants that appear likely to support a long delay and then a stressful court process.
                            So the cases tend to be reserved for repeat offenders or as part of a multiple prosecutions of a big offender.

                            Being cynical...
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              #74
                              i have received mail from the agency -

                              This mail includes:

                              EPC
                              How to rent
                              a letter confirming (and apologising that it was never a licence, that it was an AST all along)
                              a cheque of £250 (key deposit)

                              To confirm, before I moved in, I paid out two different sums/amounts before i moved in.

                              These were:

                              £400 - with the reference 'deposit'. From what I can remember, the guy said 'to take it off the market i need to pay a £400 deposit...

                              £1,690 (which clearly and obviously would have been one month rent and 6 months deposit - or something around that)


                              The cheque they gave to me was for only £250....? That stated 'key deposit'... Shouldnt the cheque have been for £400....?



                              And as we are all aware, they are doing this to cover themselves, so that they can eventually issue me with the section 8 and then the section 21....





                              *To add, they stated 'i am confirming to you that the licence tenancy issued initially was never a licence tenancy, it is, and always was, and assured shorthold tenancy'.....

                              If this is the case, i never signed an AST moving in..... it was a licence agreement contract (as they fully well stated in the e-mails, and also giving me 14 days to vacate)...

                              I believe this is also grounds for improper action if it goes to court.


                              (My friend informed me to not cash the cheque as it would be accepting their error) ....??

                              Comment


                                #75
                                You really need to take some notice of the advice you have been receiving here. You must pay your rent. Failing to pay your rent, even under the circumstances under which you have advised, will result in legal action. You will be liable for the court fee, of around £300 to £400. It is without doubt an AST and what anybody chooses to call it is irrelevant. The fact the agency failed to provide the documentation, at the commencement or before the commencement of the tenancy, and they have now provided it will not help you under ground 8 proceedings as it is a mandatory ground, meaning the judge has no discretion.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X