Told cannot return to property prior to end of tenancy

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

    #16
    Points

    It would end on the 29th of July. The minus a day was used to avoid onerous stamp duty issues in the past but is no longer necessary.

    I understand what Paul has said about the protection from eviction act but I suspect that this will be a long road to go down, particularly if you agreed to the early check-out and made no mention of the time about your rights being abused. Remember mutual agreement will often be accepted as binding by the courts.

    All properties should be returned in the same condition that they were taken excepting FW&T. This can extend to a requirement for proof that the property was professionally cleaned at the commencement before demanding the same at the termination.

    In order:

    1) I would charge you for the hole in the wall. You are responsible for the property during your tenancy and while it is bad luck that the chair collapsed it was you using it at the time.]

    2) £250 & £180 is extremely high and borders on unfair. Ask for proof of a clean at the commencement.

    3) You have been charged for labour rather than the knob. To you it may appear an easy job but as an agent I have to find a contractor instruct him to find a replacement and then install it. Unlikely for a fiver.

    4) You have a right of off-set regardless of what your contract says. However, ironically you have put your landlord in the driving seat by being a good tenant. He now has had all the rent and your deposit so you have nothing ot hold back. You could put an offset demand in writing but doubt you would get far.

    5) I would say that you have an absolute right to see receipts.

    I appreciate that Paul F provides absolute advice, however sometimes this does not take into account the stress and hassle factor. Yes there may be a breach of the protection from eviction act but pursuing it may not be so easy. If you have a solicitor ask him to draft a letter demonstrating the above and offering a settlement figure which is more reasonable. Alternatively ask the citizens advice bureau to do the same. It is better to come to an amicable conclusion.

    Hope this helps
    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a solicitor nor a specialist. I have simply spent many years in the business and am expressing my opinions. I would urge caution to any individual using these forums as a sole basis for decision without first speaking to a solicitor.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by mjpl
      It would end on the 29th of July. The minus a day was used to avoid onerous stamp duty issues in the past but is no longer necessary.

      I understand what Paul has said about the protection from eviction act but I suspect that this will be a long road to go down, particularly if you agreed to the early check-out and made no mention of the time about your rights being abused. Remember mutual agreement will often be accepted as binding by the courts. Not if the tenant wasn't advised in advance that an early check-out might prejudice his rights, so that wouldn't stand up and would be a legitimate defence.

      All properties should be returned in the same condition that they were taken excepting FW&T. This can extend to a requirement for proof that the property was professionally cleaned at the commencement before demanding the same at the termination.

      In order:

      1) I would charge you for the hole in the wall. You are responsible for the property during your tenancy and while it is bad luck that the chair collapsed it was you using it at the time.] Sorry! Can't hold tenant responsible unless it was clearly misuse and it doesn't appear to be!

      2) £250 & £180 is extremely high and borders on unfair. Ask for proof of a clean at the commencement. Northampton County Court ordered an agent to return £98 deducted for "professional cleaning" when there was no evidence to show it had been "professionally cleaned" in the first place. You should also give two or three written estimate of such costs before instructing a contractor whenever it's likely to be high as there is no way of knowing whether such a high charge is "fair & reasonable". I realise the time implications when a new tenant is on the horizon, but the tenant is clearly being welched here!

      3) You have been charged for labour rather than the knob. To you it may appear an easy job but as an agent I have to find a contractor instruct him to find a replacement and then install it. Unlikely for a fiver.

      4) You have a right of off-set regardless of what your contract says. However, ironically you have put your landlord in the driving seat by being a good tenant. He now has had all the rent and your deposit so you have nothing ot hold back. You could put an offset demand in writing but doubt you would get far. I would be issuing a summons through the SCC if my money wasn't returned in 7 days. Remember courts are much more tenant friendly when such high charges are deducted.

      5) I would say that you have an absolute right to see receipts.

      I appreciate that Paul F provides absolute advice, however sometimes this does not take into account the stress and hassle factor. Yes there may be a breach of the protection from eviction act but pursuing it may not be so easy. If you have a solicitor ask him to draft a letter demonstrating the above and offering a settlement figure which is more reasonable. Alternatively ask the citizens advice bureau to do the same. It is better to come to an amicable conclusion.

      Hope this helps
      I somehow think this landlord is not likely to be one with whom you can "negotiate"!
      The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

      Comment


        #18
        Sorry, but what do you mean by "right of off-set"?

        And paul would you agree with the 29th date?

        Thanks for all the help, greatly appreciated
        Any posts by myself are my opinion ONLY. They should never be taken as correct or factual without confirmation from a legal professional. All information is given without prejudice or liability.

        Comment


          #19
          Off-set

          You may have noticed that most contracts of yesteryear required that the rental be paid without off-set. In simple terms this required that rental be paid in full to the landlord without any deduction.

          Off-set is an amount that may be deducted from the rent to pay or compensate for any payments that had to be made dealing with the landlords repairing obligations.

          An example might be a boiler breaking down while the Landlord was on holiday in the winter. Clearly most tenants will not sit around for two weeks without heating and will instruct the work to go ahead. The off-set would be deducting the cost of this work from the next payment of rent.

          As you are no doubt aware from many of the posts in the last week or so, the OFT has become involved in the lettings industry and the Unfair Terms Legislation has taken large steps in combating clauses they considered to be one-sided. One of the first to go was the refusal of off-set.

          If you had deducted monies during the tenancy for inconveince this could have been claimed as off-set. This will be a little harder now though I am afraid.
          For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a solicitor nor a specialist. I have simply spent many years in the business and am expressing my opinions. I would urge caution to any individual using these forums as a sole basis for decision without first speaking to a solicitor.

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X