How to find specific legislation (tenancy law)

[matt0677]

I've managed to end up in a dispute. I've been told something is the law, and I'd like to see the actual legislation (if I can even understand it) - could one of the legal types on here help please?

"If the tenant offers to hand back the keys, make sure that at that stage any conditions connected with that return are agreed, and record them in writing. For example, are the keys only being accepted on the basis that the tenancy continues until a new tenant signs up at the same or a higher rent? Once a landlord accepts a surrender of the tenancy, the tenant’s liability for future rent ends unless it has been agreed otherwise."

This is part of the advice I've been given, which is obviously plain English. I'd like to know if it is valid before I put certain points to the other party.

[Jasandjules]

First thing to do is ask the other side what the law is (exact statute and section or name of the case) they claim to rely on.

[thelawnet1]

I think you will need to give full context.

[matt0677]

Jasandjules said:

First thing to do is ask the other side what the law is (exact statute and section or name of the case) they claim to rely on.

I am the "other side" and the argument is still brewing with the other parties, so it was more a case of me being shown this advice and hoping to find the actual wording it's based on - we're still a long way from legal action. I did have a scout around on the gov.uk site and found their "search" wasn't as good as the one here ;-)

I'm not sure full context is really needed at this stage? Though I'll happily give details if necessary, as it's tinder on the PH fire, rich versus poor etc!! They'll love it ;-)

[Hamish Finn]

matt0677 said:

I'll happily give details if necessary, as it's tinder on the PH fire, rich versus poor etc!! They'll love it ;-)

Don't put yourself down! The PH massive will support you in your fight against this rich bd!

[matt0677]

Hamish Finn said:

Don't put yourself down! The PH massive will support you in your fight against this rich bd!

Thanks for the useful input.

[Jasandjules]

matt0677 said:

so it was more a case of me being shown this advice and hoping to find the actual wording it's based on

Well, then ask whomever gave you that advice for the basis of it - legislation or case....

[matt0677]

I don't have that opportunity, which is why I asked on here how to find these things for myself.

Sorry, I didn't realise it is obviously not as simple as I thought.

[Jasandjules]

It may be someone like Wings will be able to point you to the right legislation or case to support what you have been told.

[matt0677]

Jasandjules said:

It may be someone like Wings will be able to point you to the right legislation or case to support what you have been told.

Thanks. I get the feeling you went easy on me ;-) The advice was from an official source, but I want to know it's sound before digging in heels. I'll wait and see if he replies.

[Slagathore]

Your tenants want to leave the property before their fixed term contract ends? Or you are trying to get out of your contract?

The tenants are liable for the rent if they abandon the contract.

if the tenants want to leave before the end of the contract, they can agree a mutual termination with the landlord to end the contract, but the terms need to be agreed and put in writing.

Or the landlord can ask them to find replacement tenants at their cost. Or the landlord finds tenants at his own cost and pursues the tenant for it.

I think it's more law based on the contract that has been signed rather than specific housing legislation. Most renting issues like that are civil law, not criminal.

[Chrisgr31]

Can you confirm that this is a residential property?

[surveyor]

I can't remember the case history, but it's definitely there that by accepting the keys back a landlord can be held to have accepted a surrender. Added case history adds on to this that taking the keys back is not necessarily a surrender but an overall picture has to be formed and this can be an important part to it.

More importantly no matter whether you are landlord or tenant you need to know where you stand and I don't understand why anyone would object to this in writing (although I'm guessing they want you to foot an expensive lawyer's deed?)

[matt0677]

I was the tenant. Signed the agreement then got taken to hospital and was kept in for surgery before I could move in. Nobody could tell me how long I would be in - I've have the same problem before and I was in hospital for six weeks that time.

I called the letting agent and they advised me to return the keys. I noticed the property was re-advertised the same day.

Since then the letting agent has ignored the email I sent from hospital to find out what's going on, and two letters I've sent them since being discharged, the last of which they signed for over two weeks ago. I've not been served any notices, not been told anything about my deposit, nor how much of my rent (paid up front), they think should be returned. Not a dickybird.

It's looking more and more like I need an expert, but I have only recently written to the actual landlord, as the only address I have for him is c/o his agent...

[Wings]

surveyor said:

I can't remember the case history, but it's definitely there that by accepting the keys back a landlord can be held to have accepted a surrender. Added case history adds on to this that taking the keys back is not necessarily a surrender but an overall picture has to be formed and this can be an important part to it.

More importantly no matter whether you are landlord or tenant you need to know where you stand and I don't understand why anyone would object to this in writing (although I'm guessing they want you to foot an expensive lawyer's deed?)

Firstly depends how the keys are returned, accepted back by the agent, and what was agreed between the OP/tenant and agent. The OP/tenant can, could be held accountable for the rental payments covering the full period of the tenancy. However if the matter did go to court, i believe the court would make it's decision, based on reasonableness, that is effort made by both the OP/tenant and the agents to re-let the property.

In a similar situation, relationships between male-female tenants can break down, I agreewith the tenants to sign a "Surrender of Tenancy" form, with a written agreement, understanding that they will cover the rent whilst the rental property is empty.

[surveyor]

Wings said:

surveyor said:

I can't remember the case history, but it's definitely there that by accepting the keys back a landlord can be held to have accepted a surrender. Added case history adds on to this that taking the keys back is not necessarily a surrender but an overall picture has to be formed and this can be an important part to it.

More importantly no matter whether you are landlord or tenant you need to know where you stand and I don't understand why anyone would object to this in writing (although I'm guessing they want you to foot an expensive lawyer's deed?)

Firstly depends how the keys are returned, accepted back by the agent, and what was agreed between the OP/tenant and agent. The OP/tenant can, could be held accountable for the rental payments covering the full period of the tenancy. However if the matter did go to court, i believe the court would make it's decision, based on reasonableness, that is effort made by both the OP/tenant and the agents to re-let the property.

In a similar situation, relationships between male-female tenants can break down, I agreewith the tenants to sign a "Surrender of Tenancy" form, with a written agreement, understanding that they will cover the rent whilst the rental property is empty.

Quite. While the OP show's why it's best detailed in writing.

I have to say that the agency demanding the keys, no formal agreement as to what is happening and then re-advertising and not speaking to the Tenant sounds awfully like they have accepted a surrender. Without a doubt it would be a hard fight to actually enforce that though.

I wonder whether the deposit was protected?

[matt0677]

surveyor said:

Quite. While the OP show's why it's best detailed in writing.

I have to say that the agency demanding the keys, no formal agreement as to what is happening and then re-advertising and not speaking to the Tenant sounds awfully like they have accepted a surrender. Without a doubt it would be a hard fight to actually enforce that though.

I wonder whether the deposit was protected?

It's hard to get anything done in writing when you're confined to a hospital bed! Which is why I tried emailing and phoning.

I've tried asking the deposit service. Their website says it is in the system, but when I asked for details they gave me details of my other (existing) tenancy. I've asked again.

[matt0677]

Just a slight update for future Googlers who might come across this thread.

I involved the ombudsman and the letting agent suddenly decided to start responding.

Unfortunately the ombudsman took the position that this reset the clock, so I'm again following the letting agents complaints procedure which can take another three weeks. So far, the agents responses have totally failed to address most of the points in my complaint. Even after pointing out to them that the tenancy needs to be ended in writing (notice has still not been served to this date), and that any deductions from the deposit or rent paid up front need to to be discussed in writing, the most I've heard so far is that they left a voicemail once (I never received it).

[Billsnemesis]

The devil is in the detail in cases like but in principle:

1. a tenant cannot compel the landlord to accept the keys back and terminate the tenancy early. The tenant signs up for a fixed period or a set periodic term e.g. weekly or monthly and must pay to the end of whichever applies

2. if the landlord voluntarily accepts the keys back and treats the property as if it were not let then it most cases that would amount to a termination of the tenancy

There is no legislation on this. It is case law and common law based.

There are also differences depending on the minutiae of the circumstances but with the premises being re-advertised it sounds to me like the tenancy had been surrendered, especially if it was advertise as being available immediately.

[matt0677]

Billsnemesis said:

The devil is in the detail in cases like but in principle:

1. a tenant cannot compel the landlord to accept the keys back and terminate the tenancy early. The tenant signs up for a fixed period or a set periodic term e.g. weekly or monthly and must pay to the end of whichever applies

2. if the landlord voluntarily accepts the keys back and treats the property as if it were not let then it most cases that would amount to a termination of the tenancy

There is no legislation on this. It is case law and common law based.

There are also differences depending on the minutiae of the circumstances but with the premises being re-advertised it sounds to me like the tenancy had been surrendered, especially if it was advertise as being available immediately.

Thank you for that advice, sorry I've been slow to reply. It will come in useful in future discussions. I've asked the landlord to clarify their position given that they're liable for their agents actions, but no response - the only address I have for them is C/O the agent, so I've asked the agent to confirm that the letter was passed on before I assert myself a bit more. I'm sure they'll take the maximum time allowed to respond, if they bother.