Stuck in a loop!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    DPS, there is a contract that says the tenant should pay £x every month. The landlord states the tenant has not paid £Y. The DPS then look to the tenant to prove that the landlord is wrong. If tenant can't prove that they have paid £Z then the landlords case is proven.


    • #17
      Thank you.


      • #18
        Originally posted by The_Fairthfuls View Post
        Their Nov rent was due 21 Nov 2012 and they advised us at the end of Jan that they moved out end of Nov. Like I said in my earlier posts, this was a verbal notification they gave when speaking with our solicitor. They refused to send anything in writing.
        I guess our concern is they may say they dont owe any rent as they moved out end of Nov.If the arbitration service agree with them, then we lose the deposit.
        There is no point in claiming the £700 deposit via the scheme adjudication service, then claiming the rest in the county court. Opt out of adjudication and bring a county court claim for the whole lot. Unpaid rent, and carpet damage (as you evidence that it was newly fitted just before the tenancy).

        You also benefit from the fact that in court you will get a hearing, and therefore a proper opportunity to argue your case. With adjudication, it's all paper-based so if the adjudicator misses something you're not there to point it out. Moreover, judges are legally qualified, whereas adjudicators may well have a less good understanding of the law. I would certainly feel more confident of a fair result in court as opposed to adjudication.

        What the T did, by his act of vacating, was make an implied offer to surrender. A LL may accept or reject, by his actions, an implied offer to surrender; for example, if the LL were to enter, change the locks, and re-let the property, he would have unequivocally re-taken possession and accepted the offer to surrender. This is known as a surrender by operation of law, when the totality of both parties' actions is inconsistent with the tenancy continuing.

        So far, all you have told us that you entered the property once. Entering once to inspect does not, in itself, necessarily comprise an acceptance of the T's offer to surrender. But the date you first entered is the earliest date that the T could possibly succeed in arguing that you had accepted his offer to surrender. He cannot succeed in arguing that his liability for rent ended on the date that he moved out.

        So, have you actually taken back possession? For example, have you cleaned the place up and redecorated, or changed the locks, or what?

        What date did you first become aware that the T had vacated? What date did you first enter the property?

        What I don't understand is why the T would have broken in to a property he has keys to....(you don't mention that he returned them).


        Latest Activity