Unusual situation..?

[lou_89]

Before signing a 6month tenancy, we asked for the removal of some items from the property that we had no need for. The LL agreed to remove the items, and the short version is - he hasn't.

Now we have been storing them on the property for the past 5months, and will have to move out after the contract expires.

- There is proof of the LL agreeing to the removal.
- The items were not included on the inventory.

Being annoyed at the whole thing, and not expecting to be forced to move so soon, I would really appreciate some advice on where I stand, and what action we could pursue, as we have:

- Stored the items for free.
- Been unable to use the garage because of the items taking up all the room.

Also, I am curious to know how responsible we are for the items, as they are not on the inventory but could we be sued for neglect, damage, theft of someone's personal property if it was our fault?

[Snorkerz]

will have to move out after the contract expires.

not expecting to be forced to move so soon

So you signed a contract for 6 months, but are suprised you can't stay 7?

I know from your other post that you have some issues with the landlord. If this ever ends up in court, you could maybe claim a refund of rent for the garage - but it's probably not worth going to court for this alone as it isn't likely to be more than a couple of hundred quid over 6 months.

[lou_89]

So you signed a contract for 6 months, but are suprised you can't stay 7?

Ok, that wasn't really the issue... but yes, I am surprised, as first of all what tenant expects to move home every 6months? And what LL would let a property only to make the decision after 4 months to evict good, rent paying tenants that cover the mortgage and the bills to have the property sat vacant and consuming money?

But specifically in our situation we were assured beforehand and throughout the tenancy even right until just a couple of hours before the LL said he wanted to evict us that it was a long term let and that LL intended to let for a couple of years, that he was preparing to sign another 6 month term, and then s.21 out of the blue. And don't bother telling me there's nothing I can do - I KNOW - when the only thing we signed was for 6 months, but it doesn't mean it was fair of LL to mislead us like that. So, for those reasons I reserve the right to feel surprised.

[P.Pilcher]

You have every right to feel suprised - as does you landlord in having to ask you to go, I expect, however his own circumstances have probably unexpectedly changed and, like many tenants, he is making use of his rights under the law!

P.P.

[lou_89]

his own circumstances have probably unexpectedly changed

Maybe... but going back to the furniture in the garage, I honestly think that LL wanted us out from the start, as this is why he was so reluctant to remove it. We eventually agreed he would come and take it at Easter - but guess what? We get evicted before Easter.

Looking back, LL hasn't been honest about his plans with the place at all. Which as far as I know isn't illegal, just unfair to do for the impact it's having now.

We wouldn't have taken the property if we hadn't been assured that we could stay for a couple of years, or if we had known that we would be storing his items for free. We have been paying for a garage that we couldn't use, and I want something back for that as a matter of principle.

[jeffrey]

We wouldn't have taken the property if we hadn't been assured that we could stay for a couple of years

Did you not demand a two-year let, then? If not, why not?

[jeffrey]

Maybe... but going back to the furniture in the garage, I honestly think that LL wanted us out from the start, as this is why he was so reluctant to remove it...

We wouldn't have taken the property if we hadn't been assured that we could stay for a couple of years, or if we had known that we would be storing his items for free. We have been paying for a garage that we couldn't use, and I want something back for that as a matter of principle.

Did L explicitly exclude the garage from the definition of what he let to you?

[lou_89]

Did you not demand a two-year let, then? If not, why not?

We didn't because 6months is standard, because we didn't know what problems we might be signing up for, or how our circumstances would change.

The last property we tenanted we signed a 12month lease but spent 11months desperate to get out of the place, my partner has been wanting to change jobs so we may have to relocate at some point.

[lou_89]

Did L explicitly exclude the garage from the definition of what he let to you?

Nooo... the garage is part of the let, definately... and the let should have come without that furniture.

Also - it was we that put the items in the garage... the stuff should have gone by the start of tenancy but we walked in to find everything still in the original rooms, so we put it all in the garage so we could actually move in and it's been there ever since.

[mind the gap]

We didn't because 6months is standard, because we didn't know what problems we might be signing up for, or how our circumstances would change.

The last property we tenanted we signed a 12month lease but spent 11months desperate to get out of the place, my partner has been wanting to change jobs so we may have to relocate at some point.

You cannot really expect the flexibility to move when you need to and in the same breath demand two years' security of tenure, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced by the furniture in the garage, but at this stage I think you are on a hiding to nothing trying to sue him for compensation.

The good news is that if the stored furniture does not feature on the Inventory, then he cannot claim you have damaged it.

[lou_89]

You cannot really expect the flexibility to move when you need to and in the same breath demand two years' security of tenure, I'm afraid.

That's fine. But because of what was said we weren't concerned with the stability of the let so agreed to a 6 month contract for the reasons above. I am annoyed about the deception with the tenancy, but surely LL should not have agreed to remove furniture when had absolutely no intention to?

How can someone agree to an unfurnished let but not remove the furniture? If it wasn't for the garage that came with the property then we would have had nowhere to put it other than dumping it on the pavement - or could not have moved in but would still have had to pay rent?

It seems fair that we should be able to ask for something back. A local storage centre would have cost the equivalant of a month's rent for 6 month's storage, so we have saved LL a chunk as well as paying for the garage additionally.

So could he not claim I have damaged something on the grounds of vandalism? Not that I intend to, but could we be sued if he thought we intentionally damaged them or knowingly exposed someone's property to risk? I am just thinking that when we move we will have to get in the garage so that means pulling his stuff out - do I need to worry about putting something in a muddy puddle on the drive?

[GillsMan]

The good news is that if the stored furniture does not feature on the Inventory, then he cannot claim you have damaged it.

That's not quite true. LL can claim that T has damaged property and LL might even win a case in court. Though it is much harder without an inventory, it's not impossible.

[jeffrey]

The Court will decide using the [civil standard] balance of probabilities, based on each side's evidence.