Urgent help required....... Landlord changed mind !!

arambol

---

ali82

:mad: :mad: WHAT A CHEECK!!! In response to another thread, this is why people think LL's are greedy!!!! how dare they!!!

Stick at it, make sure you get what your owed :money:

arambol

---

sooz

By the sounds of it, the LA has a lot to do with it. It's one thing the LL changing his mind, and quite another re-advertising it with the same LA for so much more. He'd probably just seen their bill

OP- why did you go to THAT agency???? Seriously, is there anyone that did not watch that program about them.


Get someone else to call up to confirm if the flat is available, & at that price you saw online. Then go in & talk to the manager face to face, infront of their other customers (esp. good in their new open plan coffee shop style offices)

Draw up a list of your expenses, including replacing all your furniture, & which hotel you plan to stay in until you find new accomodation

arambol

---

paintpot

It's the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 and the Distress for Rent Act 1737 I believe in case anyone is interested

N79 wrote: »

True - if I remember correctly it is the rent distress act or something similar and it dates from the 18th centuary. I'm afraid that if you can not be bothered to look it up neither can I!!!

However, again in my opinion, you would probably have a hard time trying to apply it in the small claims court in practice - if for no other reason than the fact that the judge would have to go and look it up and would then have to check it had never been repealled. You would then have to have a debate about what 18th centry English actually means in the context of an AST. Finally, the judge would probably award against the LL for being cheeky! No sane LL would pay to take that one to appeal.

So to all Ts out there, please do not worry about this ancient piece of law as the odds of it being sucessfully used in the small claims court is about nil.

neverdespairgirl

N79 wrote: »

However, without paying rent where is the consideration necessary for a tenancy to exist? OP would have to surmount this hurdle in court (the signed agreement speaks to intention but is actually optional here, if a T pays rent and takes up residence then a tenacy exists irrespective of whether there is a signed agreement) in order to be able to claim their costs. A refundable deposit is not, in my opinion, consideration. A court's view may differ.

<wince>

Consideration doesn't mean money has actually been paid already, it means that there is a thing of value contracted to on both sides.

For example, A and B conclude a written contract that A will hand on his car on 1st Januar 2009, and B will hand over £5k. That is the consideration.

neverdespairgirl

N79 wrote: »

However, I can say that a signed agreement does NOT amount to a contract, at least in England and Wales. Under English law, a contract requires consideration (simply put, money has to change hands although it does not have to be money - any benefit would do) in order to be valid. A piece of paper on its own is never enough. You could argue that the paying of a deposit amounts to consideration. In my opinion it does not but a sympathetic county court judge may well have a different opinion.

A contract requires 3 things to be binding. Offer and acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.

Consideration DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MONEY (OR WHATEVER) HAS TO HAVE BEEN PAID OVER ALREADY BEFORE THE CONTRACT IS BINDING.

N79

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

<wince>

Consideration doesn't mean money has actually been paid already, it means that there is a thing of value contracted to on both sides.

For example, A and B conclude a written contract that A will hand on his car on 1st Januar 2009, and B will hand over £5k. That is the consideration.

Thanks for that. Failed on rule 1: Don't speculate on things that you really don't know much about.:o

I stick by my opinion that OP has almost no chance of getting any money out of the agent though.

arambol

---