User Profile

[KTC]

That is a good point. They are not merely requirements because of section 21. They're required in their own rights. While no effect on section 21 for non-compliance for old tenancies, by itself for the EPC a fine, for the GSC criminal offence, imprisonable, unlimited fine........

[KTC]

Assuming the most recent tenancy you explicitly granted (i.e. not statutorily deemed granted after the end of a fixed term), there is as of writing nothing for you to do.

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...170#post104217...

[KTC]

No ....

[KTC]

The only way any tenants can get these "great little earner" would be if the landlord have fail to comply with the legislations in the first place. It doesn't matter how rogue a tenant is, if the landlord have complied and made sure they can evidence it, there's nothing for rogue tenants to...

[KTC]

Non compliance by landlords of the law make the tenants rogue? ...

[KTC]

Sometimes I wonder who write those articles....

• How to Rent doesn't apply to old tenancies at all. (s41)
• Requirements to comply with prescribed legal requirements does, but the only prescribed requirements as of writing explicitly only apply to tenancies from 1 October 2015. So until

...

[KTC]

Actually it does. It even applies to a SPT arising on or after 1 April 2018, though in that case the landlord gets to registered for a 6 months exemption....

[KTC]

No, surrender is a complete different matter. With regards to tenancy, both contracts law, and landlord and tenants law comes into consideration. As a matter of landlord and tenants, if there were a valid notice, then a tenancy will end on the notice expiry. Alternatively, a tenant may offer to give...

[KTC]

The Court of Appeal have previously found that where contract were formed requiring a signature through email communication, it was sufficient for the sender to have typed their name (in some form that's identifiable to the person) in the body of the email to constitute signing. As long as the intent...

[KTC]

The return of the deposit for an ex-tenancy is an option, not mandatory. If the court is dealing with proposed deductions dispute at the same time as a claim for penalty, it wouldn't be ordering the return of the part of the deposit that is rightfully to be deducted....

[KTC]

Yeah, it's a question, rather than a statement "we will leave on XYZ".



By the landlord's own admission, the landlord have taken possession. The tenancy have then ended. No tenancy, no rent due....

[KTC]

In England & Wales, the penalty is between 1x and 3x the amount of the deposit. Since the deposit was protected, it ought to be the lower end of the scale, but it's up to the judge at the end of the day....

[KTC]

You don't. If you're happy for one of them to stay as a sole tenant, just grant a new (fixed term or periodic) tenancy to that person from the date you want. Do a full inventory unless the one staying agree in writing that the condition of the property at the start of this tenancy is as per the condition...

[KTC]

Not that it matters if there's going to be a dispute and it has to be settled by adjudication since I assume the process will take longer than that time frame anyway. However, on what basis does the TDS think it can enforce a minimum 30 days period. (BTW, I'm assuming we are talking custodial.) Schedule...

[KTC]

Unlike jpkeates, I think there probably wasn't a valid notice to quit, and for that matter the back and forth discussions probably didn't amount to a contract to surrender either. However, in agreement with jpkeates and Lawcruncher, it's pretty clear from post #25 that there is no tenancy after Day...

[KTC]

Please start your own seperate thread. At least you posted it on the public forum and not just PMs now....

Minimum EPC rating doesn't (yet) apply to existing tenancy.

[KTC]

Because apparently those of us that replied have all missed the "11/05/2018" part.

Yeah, just serve a s21. Nothing special to worry about....

[KTC]

Before there's any more "no section 21 before month 5". That restriction only applies in England, not in Wales, and it does not apply to a statutory periodic tenancy.

[KTC]

Oh yeah, I think the OP did originally say Scotland before the sentence was edited out to remove reference to specific organisation....

[KTC]

I haven't read the whole thread, but just this bit.... err WHAT? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Find somewhere else if I were you....