when is a tenancy a holiday let?

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

    #16
    AndrewDod,

    I am sorry you feel I am wasting your time. Do not reply again if you feel that way. For the record, my issue is an unfair withholding of deposit. It is not to claim 3x the deposit. This thread was to clarify whether such a tenancy is a holiday let, so that I know how to proceed. For instance, the shelter website has templates for AST when there is no deposit protection. In any case, thank you for the answers. I am still trying to understand but they are helpful.
    Last edited by gregpeck; 27-05-2017, 20:19 PM. Reason: removed about the other thread. Reason: threads were merged

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
      Yes MCOL is appropriate. It would help if you explained the exact nature of the purported damages and the purported cause (and the T&C's if any relating to the tenancy and deposit).

      The second part of your query (holiday let etc.) is totally irrelevant.
      Thank you for confirming the MCOL. Perhaps you can tell if my claim is fair. The shower hose was broken and splashed water outside. There was a wooden table next to the shower that was splashed and I did not see the damage being made on its surface. I was only made aware of it after I left the property. I consider it unfair because the shower use was normal use, plus I cleaned the water from the surface each time. He is now telling me that he will withhold money for the shower too.

      Edit: there was no detailed T&C or inventory. A handwritten agreement saying it is a holiday let and that the deposit will be returned if no damage is caused.
      Last edited by gregpeck; 27-05-2017, 20:15 PM. Reason: add about T&C

      Comment


        #18
        Two related threads have been merged.

        gregpeck, it is the preference withe the LLZ forums to keep related questions together in a single thread.
        I also post as Mars_Mug when not moderating

        Comment


          #19
          gregpeck,

          Well it sounds as if he may have difficulty in court. So providing you had some sort of contract which made it clear what the deposit was for and under what circumstances it should be returned, and if it should have been returned, then have a go at MCOL and you should win if it as clearcut as you say it is. Let us know the outcome.

          Comment


            #20
            Thanks again! I will let you know. It would be interesting I am sure for others. But can you please explicitly say what is "clearcut"? There is no proof that the shower was not damaged by me, no proof I looked after the bathroom in general, no proof I did not see the wood being damaged...

            Comment


              #21
              It's clearly not for a holiday:. And it appears both tenant & landlord knew this,yet chose to sign a misleading agreement.

              Can't remember what sort of agreement it actually was (irrespective of shiny new signed paperwork) but it wasn't an AST so no deposit protection.
              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


                #22
                IMO either it was a short term Let of <6 months fixed Term , so not an AST requiring deposit protection etc or LL rented a room in his house and went on holiday for 2+ weeks
                Again rent-a-room does not require deposit protection.
                OP, sue LL for deposit via SCC/MCoL and see what Judge awards?
                Did you only want a room for 14 days? Why?
                Don't get ansty with those offering you advice.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Send the landlord a letter before action advising you will be making a claim in court.

                  Without an inventory he will struggle to prove you caused the damage although you will also struggle to prove you didn't.

                  He must evidence his claim.

                  If you truly could not be expected to know there was a problem and could have informed the landlord then I can't see how you cant win.

                  Unless the damage was malicious or you ignored an obvious repair then you aren't liable.

                  Put this is in your letter before action and advise you will be pursuing all costs unless the deposit is returned in full

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Also if there was another tenant has he also been made liable?

                    Did he know of the damage being caused? Would he be willing to support you as a witness?

                    Comment


                      #25
                      For clarity, an AST does not have to be 6 months minimum - it could be for 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months etc etc
                      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


                        #26
                        Wright76,

                        As I understand story the other occupant was landlord/owner him/herself who just happened to be away for two weeks.

                        Shelter has a step by step guide to court claims for lodger deposits

                        https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi...odgers_deposit

                        Comment


                          #27
                          There's no need for a "holiday let" to be for an actual holiday.
                          It covers accommodation where the occupant actually lives somewhere else.

                          The agreement should outline what the deposit is to be used for, but normally the money would remain the property of the tenant and be in the control of the landlord.
                          The person letting the property needs to be able to prove that they have suffered a loss as a consequence of the agreement entered into and that they are entitled to compensation for it (essentially that it was not foreseeable as a part of the arrangement).
                          Assuming that the agreement doesn't say anything to the contrary, the landlord can only retain any of the deposit that the person handing over the deposit agrees to - which, in this case, is nothing.


                          So the OP should send a letter before action demanding the return of the deposit in full, and then (assuming its not paid) use MCOL or a small claim via a court to recover their money.
                          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


                            #28
                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            There's no need for a "holiday let" to be for an actual holiday.
                            It covers accommodation where the occupant actually lives somewhere else.
                            Interesting this "holiday" let thing. (I'm also of the opinion it doesn't have to be for an actual holiday)
                            Does anyone know the legal definition or have any case law?

                            For example someone who leaves their partner (who owned the property) and moves into a holiday let and claims it is an assured tenancy.

                            Some cases are obviously clear cut such as a twee country cottage in Devon, but a 2 bed terrace in Huddersfield?

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by boletus View Post
                              Interesting this "holiday" let thing. (I'm also of the opinion it doesn't have to be for an actual holiday)
                              Does anyone know the legal definition or have any case law?................
                              HA 1988 Schedule 1(9) - Sched 1 lists those tenancies that cannot be (may not be, legally impossible to be) an AT
                              http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...liday-lettings
                              Holiday lettings

                              9 A tenancy the purpose of which is to confer on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday.
                              But there's case law in the books e.g.
                              -
                              R v Rent Officer for Camden LBC ex p Plant 1980
                              Holiday let agreement did not reflect reality of situation and tenancy protected
                              &
                              McHale v Daneham 1979
                              ‘Working holiday’ came within exception to security
                              &
                              Buchmann v May 1978
                              Courts should be ‘astute to detect a sham’ but for tenant to establish this
                              &
                              Killick v Roberts 1991
                              Rescission available where tenancy entered into as a result of tenant’s fraud


                              AirBnB of course makes life even more interesting (that their paperwork says one thing don't mean it can't be an AST

                              I regret that persons appear keen (all side, tenants, landlords, agents, MPs, HCEOs...) to agree to & sign paperwork when knowing full well it don't reflect reality. I've no sympathy for cheats whoever they are & from whatever sector/side they come.
                              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


                                #30
                                For an assured tenancy, the property must be the only or principal home of the tenant. At face value the duration of the tenancy does not really matter.

                                In general Airbnb lets are not ASTs for this very reason.

                                I think the 'holiday let' exclusion is to prevent a tenant from claiming assured (shorthold) protection on the ground that he hasn't any other home.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X