notice to quit and deposit stuff

[singlecoil]

A friend of ours has been given two months notice to quit (she's on an assured shorthold tenanacy)
She has no problem with that, but is now due to pay two months rent for the time remaining. She normally pays 2 months in advance. The landlords are holding two months worth of deposit. She has suggested to them that if they use her deposit to cover the rent, then she will have enough money to afford the deposit on an alternative property, and will be able to move out without difficulty within the time allowed. They haven't replied as yet.

The landlords have already acknowledged that she has looked after the property well, and she has promised to leave the place clean and tidy.

It seems to me that even if they insist that she pays the two months rent, and that they continue to hold her deposit until after she has moved out, that they can't actually enforce that within the two months. In other words they would need to go to court and by then the two months would be over anyway.

Any thoughts about this?

[singlecoil]

I think my friend's plan is that she should not pay the last two months rent, and that the landlord will then have to use the deposit to cover that. What this means in effect that the landlord won't actually get to choose whether she is going to pay the rent - and then decide how much of her deposit to return, rather that she makes the decision for him by simply not paying.

I must admit that I told her it seemed like a good idea to me, especially as he has already broken the tenancy agreement by not maintaining the property.

I can't see that he has an effective legal remedy anyway, as 2 months isn't long enough to get an order for possession

[singlecoil]

UpTheIron said:

Swoxy said:

I'm a Lettings Negotiator and see tenants do this all the time. There isn't much the landlord can do.

Most tenants leave the property unattended - e.g. when they go to work. What is to stop the landlord changing the locks whilst the tenant is out, given that she is in breach of contract?

Her point is that the landlords have already breached the contract by failing to maintain the property, which, having seen the place, I can confirm. Taps that drip, bath that doesn't drain properly, central heating system not maintained, broken paving stones in front of the front door, paint falling off the exterior etc etc

As far as changing the locks, totally out of the question legally I understand, she could just break in again and change the locks again anyway

[singlecoil]

FUBAR said:

I take the note that you say the landlord has breached the contract but certainly for a leaky tap or a slow emptying bath I dont think they have a point (IMO). With regards to the other items, I assume the landlord has been made aware of the problems? If not, be difficult to claim the landlord has been negligent if he/she/they havent been informed? Anyway, it should state in the AST that the tenant should not withold rent in lieu of repairs and that the deposit is not top be used for rent arrears?

We know this lady well, she is a close friend of my wife's, and are au fait with the issues of the property, which have been going on for a couple of years
I note that you are looking at the tenant's complaints in very much the way that the landlord does. 'leaky tap' for instance. The tap in question is able to fill a mug in about 10 seconds, apparently at night is can be heard throughout the house. It has been that way for several months. I would have repaired it for her myself only there appears to be no stopcock on the property ( I do kitchens for a living, and know how to look for one).
The bath is not so much 'slowly emptying', as 'NOT emptying'. The landlords have been acknowledging the need to replace this bath for over two years. The next day there is quite a puddle of water from the previous day's use.
The paving stones in front of the door actually rock through a 3 inch arc.
There are plenty of other issues BTW. If she wants to direct people to the house she can just tell them to look for the scruffiest house in the street
What has been happening is that the landlords have been stringing her along with promises of repairs and upgrades. It has become obvious that they were intending to sell all along and they are no doubt going to leave these issues for the buyer to deal with.
We still don't know which way the landlord is going to jump, but it seems to me that a 'day in court' is going to provide the landlord with considerable embarassment at the least

[singlecoil]

deva link said:

If push came to shove, then 'au fait' isn't going to stand up in cour

I wasn't planning to go to court on her behalf, she's quite capable of speaking up for herself. I'm posting this query as she doesn't have internet access

deva link said:

if the house is a wreck and they're selling up then they might agree. But you can't really force the issue by complaining now about things that should have been dealt with properly in the past.

The complaint re the bath has been on the books for 2 years. Apparently there have been repeated promises of replacement.
The landlords themselves acknowledged the problem with the paving stomes last year. She isn't really the type to repeatedly complain, but a complaint made and not dealt with is still something that hasn't been dealt with whether the complaint was made once or twenty times