Breaking a Tenancy

missymugwump

we have considered the moonlight flit (but pay all our bills) - but im getting nervous as the date approaches

What the date for you to move out to your new property ?
Have you already signed a new contract with a new landlord ?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

missymugwump wrote: »

This is not admissable
You cannot force a landlord to take a new tenant
The tenant is in contract
The Landlord MAY choose to accept the remarketing of the property at the exiting tenants cost
The Landlord MAY choose not to

It is admissable & I bet you could find some civil rights lawyers to do it on a no win no fee basis.

missymugwump

If I was current Landlord
I would question current tenants ability to to define "suitable" replacement tenant
In light of her attitude to her contractual responsibilites

Landlord would be right to be concerned that exiting tenant will put anyone forward if it gets her off the hook

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

---


I take it you are referring to the 2006 judgement.


It concluded along the lines of "If the landlord chose to regard it as up to the tenant to propose an assignee, sub-tenant or, if he wished, a substitute tenant under a new tenancy, rather than take the initiative himself, that was not unreasonable, still less wholly unreasonable. "


The OP here has found a possible future tenant & if that tenant is a "suitable" tenant & the landlord refuses the same court would deem that to be unreasonable..

Google & read more of the judgement.

Just the one I mean.

So back to your oringinal sugestion BUT everyone has a duty to limit losses is fundamentally wrong.

The landlord in this case had no duty to mitigate his loses.

Why dont you have a google and brush up on tenacy case law?

missymugwump

Im guessing your Landlord/Letting Agent is peeved
Its a good job you didnt get the guarantor else your mother would be paying your next 3 months rent
Did you tell them ?
They may be peeved that they gave you a chance & you are causing them problems

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Planner wrote: »

Just the one I mean.

So back to your oringinal sugestion BUT everyone has a duty to limit losses is fundamentally wrong.

The landlord in this case had no duty to mitigate his loses.

Why dont you have a google and brush up on tenacy case law?

Try reading the judgement.

& look out for the words reasonable & unreasonable.

"Only in exceptional circumstances involving unreasonableness would this be so. In this case, the tenant could not show that the landlord had acted unreasonably in its failure to seek a new tenant as it was open to the tenant to propose a new tenant, by assignment or subletting and it did not do so. "

Try brushing up yourself...

Black & White good enough for you?

Please feel free to post parts of the judgement yourself...

missymugwump

What if
they rent without disclosing then run a business from that property
surely having a van of stock on drives denotes self employment & no business premises ?
What if this breaches the AST terms ?


What ifs of course

Lavendyr

lilacgirl wrote: »

I would be interested to learn how many of you who have responded are actual landlords yourselves???

Hello, I'm a tenant and I would like to offer my opinion :j

lilacgirl wrote: »

the van IS NOT obstructing anyone its just the stupid neighbours across the road who happen to be old people

I don't understand why it's 'disgusting' for your landlord to be racist but it's OK for you to be ageist? Both behaviours are extremely poor in my view (and no, I'm not old - not that it matters).

The thing is, ultimately it's best and nicest all around to be considerate neighbours, and most people don't make a fuss about nothing. Even if you think they can park OK, it doesn't mean they can - whether that's because they're not good drivers, or because they're old (which, again, seems completely irrelevant to me), or whatever. As Debt_Free_Chick said earlier, if it is blocking them, move a bit, and if it's not, then just politely say to them that you don't believe it is an issue. If you are genuinely not blocking them and you are genuinely parking legally, why not invite them to call the council to assess the situation?

lilacgirl wrote: »

if i end up getting fed up of the constant moans and tutts i will no doubt end up swearing at them, telling them to 'do one'

Well, isn't that charming. Why don't you try being nice first? It's likely to get you much further and achieve much more.

lilacgirl wrote: »

AND we have lived here 3 months, this has been going on for more than half of that which has given us plenty of time to look for another property

That doesn't change the fact that you have signed up for a longer fixed term and you cannot just break it because the neighbour doesn't like where you park your van.

lilacgirl wrote: »

why cant anyone on here give practical advice, i.e. how i can get out of the tenancy instead of questioning my original question and doubting why we want to move

I'm afraid that if you post on a public forum you'll get all sorts of responses, whether you like them or not - that's the nature of the beast. If you want tailored advice, I would suggest you see a solicitor or adviser.

It is only 3 months more. Can you not just wait until the tenancy is over? I'm afraid that I can only see two options for you - either stay where you are and give notice that you will leave at the end of the fixed term, or move out and pay for the tenancy until the end of the fixed term. From what I've read, the area surrounding landlords and their duty to mitigate losses seems a little grey - there is precedent to suggest that landlords do not have to mitigate their losses, but I would imagine it depends very much on the individual situation.

I have been in a similar situation where a tenancy I was in was ending at a certain time (by landlord's request - they wanted to move back in), and a house that we wanted had come up but the landlords wanted us in earlier. We talked to the landlord of our current rental and he was happy to release us from the contract one month early as it meant he could move back in sooner. That left about 2 weeks' overlap when we were paying rent on two homes. That was our choice to make sure we got the new home we wanted.

Obviously in our case the landlord was happy for us to leave early which doesn't sound as though it's the case for you, but if you want to move, I think you should be prepared to pay the premium for it. Personally though, for the length of time we're talking about, I would put up, grin and bear any tuts and moans you get.

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Try reading the judgement.

& look out for the words reasonable & unreasonable.

"Only in exceptional circumstances involving unreasonableness would this be so. In this case, the tenant could not show that the landlord had acted unreasonably in its failure to seek a new tenant as it was open to the tenant to propose a new tenant, by assignment or subletting and it did not do so. "

Try brushing up yourself...

Black & White good enough for you?

Please feel free to post parts of the judgement yourself...

All very interesting im sure, but back to your mistake. You have stated;

BUT everyone has a duty to limit losses.

You have then proceeded to post a case where the final outcome of the case was, in fact, that the the landlord had NO OBLIGATION to mitigate their losses.

So your statement above is incorrect, everyone dose not have a duty to mitigate their losses, as has clearly been demonstrated by the outcome of the appeal case.

Is there some part of this you arent grasping?

I have made no comment on whether the landlord has to allow the tenant to look for alternative tenants as its completley irrelevant as it isnt an issue as the o/p has sought alternative tenants. Further I have made no comment on wether the landlord is reasonable or unreasonable, as we dont yet know the outcome of the alternative tenants vetting proccess.

So once again to be clear. Your statement that everyone has a duty to mitigate their losses is incorrect. A landlord has no duty to mitigate their losses.

Thats all in black and white for you, hope you get it now.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Planner wrote: »

All very interesting im sure, but back to your mistake. You have stated;

BUT everyone has a duty to limit losses.

You have then proceeded to post a case where the final outcome of the case was, in fact, that the the landlord had NO OBLIGATION to mitigate their losses.

So your statement above is incorrect, everyone dose not have a duty to mitigate their losses, as has clearly been demonstrated by the outcome of the appeal case.

Is there some part of this you arent grasping?

I have made no comment on whether the landlord has to allow the tenant to look for alternative tenants as its completley irrelevant as it isnt an issue as the o/p has sought alternative tenants. Further I have made no comment on wether the landlord is reasonable or unreasonable, as we dont yet know the outcome of the alternative tenants vetting proccess.

So once again to be clear. Your statement that everyone has a duty to mitigate their losses is incorrect. A landlord has no duty to mitigate their losses.

Thats all in black and white for you, hope you get it now.

If you want to quote me out of context thats you business.

It was in relation to this statement "The landlord is under ...... no obligation to accept an alernative tenant that you have found. BLAH BLAH BLAH" They can sue you BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Now give it a little break & back to your book.

You may well find REASONABLE & UNREASONABLE still cover nearly all aspects of law.

& EVERYONE still does have a duty to limit losses.... (when those losses are deemed REASONABLE) better now???......


YAWN.

:T