notice to quit and deposit stuff
Discussion
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?
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?
Two months in advance and two months deposit is a very careful landlord.
Technically the agreement wouldhave to be fulfilled my both parties. Of course, if your fireld is paying two months in advance, that would mean that the payment she is just about to make or has just made would be the last one, as of course there would be no reason to pay rent in advance for a period both parties agree she will not be there for.
With regard to the deposit, that is returned at the end of the tenancy. Of course the point of the deposit is to cover costs of damage to the property and missing items etc on the tenants leaving, so the landlord would not want to return this before the tenant leaves and the property is checked - although it may be possible, and preferable to check the property with the landlord on the final day so that the state of the property can be agreed and the deposit returned immediately.
Although it may not be the best idea, if the tenant was to not pay rent for the next month then as well as a breach of contract it may annoy the landlord, however there is nothing much they could do about it until the contract ends and they would then be able to sue for any losses, but of course there would be none as thy would keep the deposit. This route however may mean that the landlord charges fees for non-payment so the key would be if the landlord agrees to the plan beforehand.
Technically the agreement wouldhave to be fulfilled my both parties. Of course, if your fireld is paying two months in advance, that would mean that the payment she is just about to make or has just made would be the last one, as of course there would be no reason to pay rent in advance for a period both parties agree she will not be there for.
With regard to the deposit, that is returned at the end of the tenancy. Of course the point of the deposit is to cover costs of damage to the property and missing items etc on the tenants leaving, so the landlord would not want to return this before the tenant leaves and the property is checked - although it may be possible, and preferable to check the property with the landlord on the final day so that the state of the property can be agreed and the deposit returned immediately.
Although it may not be the best idea, if the tenant was to not pay rent for the next month then as well as a breach of contract it may annoy the landlord, however there is nothing much they could do about it until the contract ends and they would then be able to sue for any losses, but of course there would be none as thy would keep the deposit. This route however may mean that the landlord charges fees for non-payment so the key would be if the landlord agrees to the plan beforehand.
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
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
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? 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
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? There is nothing to stop the landlord changing the locks, however a new set of keys must be provided for the tenant, so kind of defeats the object.
superlightr said:
singlecoil said:
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
But it is long enough for a county court summons for the arrears.
If the landlord went for possession under Section 8 then I believe, technically, they could, or get very close to it, but more the point that the landlord will have his day in court and the tenant will have to attend (and AFAIK) will have to pay the legal/court fees? (AFAIK there is no real defence to rent arrears?) And possibly for any disrepair at the end of the tenancy should she leave and not carry out any repairs which would be her responsibility? If it went against the tenant at court etc, and she didnt stump up the difference between the rent owed/deposit held and an amount for disrepair (possibly?) then does she really want a CCJ on her credit file?
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?
Im assuming the tenant isnt too worried about getting a glowing reference for the next landlord?
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 said:
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
If push came to shove, then 'au fait' isn't going to stand up in court.
singlecoil said:
I note that you are looking at the tenant's complaints in very much the way that the landlord does.
Perhaps the problems have been understated to the landlord in the way that you understated them at first on here?
singlecoil said:
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 embarrassment at the least
If you're itching for a fight, then go through the repairs procedure. Write to the landlord and then if that doesn't work, get the repairs done and send them the bill. Then you can sue if they don't pay up.
There no harm in trying to make the arrangement for the deposit that you have, and perhaps 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.
singlecoil said:
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
Yes I probably did look at it from the landlord's POV, as thats what I am. Were these problems already at the property when she moved in? Did she inform the landlord at the time? Has she written to the landlord since the problems appeared? A "yes I phoned them once, 2 years ago" wouldnt, IMHO, stand up in court. If she has written to them, and they havent done anything, then they deserve what they (the landlord) gets.
Hopefully Im 'one of the good ones' and I/we attend to all disrepair issues as quickly as I/we can, but agree, there are a lot of 'shysters' out there. Similarly, something like a leaky tap (caused by a simple washer replacement) would be the tenant's responsibility, as are, according to Section 11 of the L&T Act, minor repairs (bulbs/fuses/washers/unblocking sinks etc. Section 11 goes on, and on, and on, but basically anything that doesnt affect the tenant's 'quiet enjoyment' does not form part of the landlord's statuatory obligations IIRC). I say that as you wouldnt believe the amount of tenants who phone up jumping and shouting that the lights/electrics are buggered (their definition), demanding an immediate call out, for me to send an electrician in, to then find out the flippin lightbulb had blown!
I am in no way defending this particular landlord, just giving a view from the other side.
Edited by FUBAR on Monday 5th February 17:48
jamesuk28 said:
The tenant is within her rights, if after requesting repairs to be carried out they are not, to have the items repaired herself and invoice the landlord for them.
I cant argue with that
Not so sure I agree with the 'sue the feckers/false personal injury claim' attitude though.
Edited by FUBAR on Monday 5th February 17:52
FUBAR said:
jamesuk28 said:
The tenant is within her rights, if after requesting repairs to be carried out they are not, to have the items repaired herself and invoice the landlord for them.
I cant argue with that
Not so sure I agree with the 'sue the feckers/false personal injury claim' attitude though.
Edited by FUBAR on Monday 5th February 17:52
The second part was a joke, have a look at senseofhumour-bypass-reversed.com
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
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff