LL enters property - breach?
Discussion
Morning folks,
I'll keep it brief.
Just moved out of property at end of tenancy. £2200 dep held by agent. LL has a long wish-list of 'repairs' so this one will run and run. After we'd moved out but before the tenancy was up, he entered the property. He claims it was to secure the place as we had left an external door and window unlocked. We claim (since we know) that's not the case. His word again ours.
I believe he's in breach per the SLT. Is there any redress?
We've been out a month and not had the details of which DPS the agency is with.
Thank you!
I'll keep it brief.
Just moved out of property at end of tenancy. £2200 dep held by agent. LL has a long wish-list of 'repairs' so this one will run and run. After we'd moved out but before the tenancy was up, he entered the property. He claims it was to secure the place as we had left an external door and window unlocked. We claim (since we know) that's not the case. His word again ours.
I believe he's in breach per the SLT. Is there any redress?
We've been out a month and not had the details of which DPS the agency is with.
Thank you!
Forget about the entry to the propertyt, write a letter giving 2 weeks to return deposit or you will iniiiate small claims proceedings, write another 2 weeks after that giving a further week, then take him to court if necessary. Note in the letters the penalty for not properly registering (or providing details of) the deposit (up to 3 x the deposit).
RealSquirrels said:
Forget about the entry to the propertyt, write a letter giving 2 weeks to return deposit or you will iniiiate small claims proceedings, write another 2 weeks after that giving a further week, then take him to court if necessary. Note in the letters the penalty for not properly registering (or providing details of) the deposit (up to 3 x the deposit).
Yes and thank you but what about his claims for damages / repairs against the deposit?DickusMaximus said:
Jobbo said:
Hard to demonstrate that he's breached your quiet enjoyment if you have already moved out.
There's a very specific clause in the SLT barring entry to an empty propertyETA: even if there is such a clause, what would your loss be? What would your remedy be? Pointless to pursue. He could have knocked the building down after you'd moved out and you still wouldn't have suffered any loss. Still obviously pursue the return of your deposit.
Edited by Jobbo on Thursday 5th September 07:46
I would definitely check that the LL had registered the deposit, did you not receive the prescribed information when the deposit was handed over? you are in a good position to get your deposit back in full(maybe compensation too) if LL didn't bother to register it.
Regarding entering the property, technically LL should have gave you 24 hours notice to turn up at the property if the tenancy agreement was still in place, this procedure is in place so that your "peace and enjoyment" of the property isn't disrupted however if you had already moved out then what exactly is the problem with him entering?
Regarding entering the property, technically LL should have gave you 24 hours notice to turn up at the property if the tenancy agreement was still in place, this procedure is in place so that your "peace and enjoyment" of the property isn't disrupted however if you had already moved out then what exactly is the problem with him entering?
DickusMaximus said:
RealSquirrels said:
Forget about the entry to the propertyt, write a letter giving 2 weeks to return deposit or you will iniiiate small claims proceedings, write another 2 weeks after that giving a further week, then take him to court if necessary. Note in the letters the penalty for not properly registering (or providing details of) the deposit (up to 3 x the deposit).
Yes and thank you but what about his claims for damages / repairs against the deposit?Jobbo said:
Do you mean AST? I'm intrigued about this clause; what would be the purpose of a clause preventing a landlord carrying out a check of condition/inventory after a tenant has moved out?
ETA: even if there is such a clause, what would your loss be? What would your remedy be? Pointless to pursue. He could have knocked the building down after you'd moved out and you still wouldn't have suffered any loss. Still obviously pursue the return of your deposit.
it's the tenant's house, if they are renting it, even if they're not living in it. ETA: even if there is such a clause, what would your loss be? What would your remedy be? Pointless to pursue. He could have knocked the building down after you'd moved out and you still wouldn't have suffered any loss. Still obviously pursue the return of your deposit.
Edited by Jobbo on Thursday 5th September 07:46
what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
RealSquirrels said:
it's the tenant's house, if they are renting it, even if they're not living in it.
what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
Big difference. You cannot have quiet enjoyment of the property if you have moved out. Landlord is in the wrong but no court would find against in such circumstances. However it's useful leverage for getting the deposit back.what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
garyhun said:
RealSquirrels said:
it's the tenant's house, if they are renting it, even if they're not living in it.
what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
Big difference. You cannot have quiet enjoyment of the property if you have moved out. Landlord is in the wrong but no court would find against in such circumstances. However it's useful leverage for getting the deposit back.what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
If we consider only vacated (but still let) properties, even then a tenant, for example, could have moved out but not yet cleaned the property. In such a scenario I wouldn't want the landlord having a look round without my permission/knowledge...
RealSquirrels said:
garyhun said:
RealSquirrels said:
it's the tenant's house, if they are renting it, even if they're not living in it.
what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
Big difference. You cannot have quiet enjoyment of the property if you have moved out. Landlord is in the wrong but no court would find against in such circumstances. However it's useful leverage for getting the deposit back.what's the difference between the landlord popping round when you're out and you've emptied it of furniture, or when you're just nipped down the shops and left your sofas at home?
WinstonWolf said:
RealSquirrels said:
WinstonWolf said:
You can't enjoy it if you've moved out...
you can, in the way i just explained.You're no longer a tenant
even if the house is empty, if you're paying rent, you're a tenant.
RealSquirrels said:
WinstonWolf said:
You can't enjoy it if you've moved out...
you can, in the way i just explained.Any tenant who bothered to go to court over the point would probably get a costs order against them.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff