Can anyone help

lisa31uk

we was renting a property privately thru estate agents and halfway thru contract we had to move to a flat due to ill health we said we would pay the rent till may as we had a year contract
now thing is they have a board up on the old house but they are not letting viewings as work is being carried out this as been going on a month now and my friend rung up again today to check if viewings still on and she replied no work still being done and no idea how long it will take i know the house had bad damp problems is there anything we can do or do we still have to pay their monthly rent even if its not letable

BitterAndTwisted

What sort of contract did you sign, whose names are on it and what was the length of the agreement?

lisa31uk

assured contract for 12 months in my name and my boyfriends i know really theres nothing much we can do its so annoying they lie to us saying all work been done but my friend rings and they tell her no no viewings at this time work being carried out i just like the truth

BitterAndTwisted

Was there a break-clause in the agreement? If not, you and your b/f are liable for the whole of the rent for the entire period of the contract. It MIGHT be possible to reach an agreement with your landlord to surrender early but that would need to be by mutual agreement, possibly based on the fact that the property was not habitable, if that was the case. I have no idea why you are exercised by the fact that works are going on and the agents are not accepting viewings at present. Did they agree on behalf of the LL that you would not be liable for the whole of the rent if they could re-let?

lisa31uk

yes they said if they re let we would not be responsible for paying the rent until then we are doin nothing much we can do thx anyway for ur help

not_tonight_josephine_2

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I have no idea why you are exercised by the fact that works are going on and the agents are not accepting viewings at present. Did they agree on behalf of the LL that you would not be liable for the whole of the rent if they could re-let?

From reading other similar stories on here, as I understand it LL's are generally considered to have an obligation to mitigate their losses in this type of situation ie to try to relet the property? (Although I have seen a few people say that this is a grey area legally). If the property is not viewable or habitable at the moment due to works going on then the LL is clearly not trying to mitigate his losses. This does seem unfair to me - the OP does not even have the option of trying to source a replacement tenant herself.

It sounds like the LL is taking advantage of the situation to carry out work to the property whilst still receiving full rent. What would happen if the OP tried to move back in (as she is still the paying tenant)? Would the LL have to stop charging rent then as the property is not habitable?

BitterAndTwisted

Most works to refurbish a property do not always render it uninhabitable or home-owners would always book themselves into a hotel or B&B while they are going on, and they rarely do in my experience.

I agree, while the landlord has the tenants in a legally-binding contract there is little incentive for them to find replacement tenants but not doing so is not against the law, from what I understand. The landlord is NOT obliged to even to agree to find replacement tenants at all. but it shows that they are trying to appear to be reasonable if they say they will try to do so, otherwise why have a contract at all?

clutton_2

i would advise the tenants to stop paying the rent and let the LL take them to court for rent - let a judge decide whether it is equitable to have a tenant pay rent for a non-habitable property which is not lettable

as a LL myself, i think this one is definitelyt taking the micky

OP could go to their council Private Rental Housing OFficer and ask their advice, or Shelter

silvercar

Difficult one, say you had 4 months to run on tenancy agreement. If you the landlord did work in the first month which meant the property would let quickly in month 2, you would save 3 months rent. If you insist that the work should not be done whilst you are still paying rent, the property may not relet at all during the 4 months.

BitterAndTwisted

There's no indication that the OP moved out of the property because of the building works: they stated they moved out due to ill-health. The two things may not be connected at all. It's possible that the LL either scheduled the work before the OP decided to vacate or is having the work done now in order to re-let once the OP's tenancy agreement expires.

princeofpounds

This is a very simple situation. The OP is responsible for the rent until the contract termination date, whether that is a break clause being invoked or the end of the fixed tenancy period.

If they leave early, the landlord can continue to demand that they pay the rent, but is expected under law to mitigate losses by searching for another tenant.

If they have chosen not to search for another tenant but to do work on the property then that is not mitigation and so the tenant should no longer be liable for rent.

The only exception to this is if the work would be non-discretionary - for example, if the boiler has broken then it has to be fixed whether there is a tenant in there or not, but changing carpets and repainting would be totally discretionary.

The only thing you need is proof that the landlord is choosing not to accept new tenants. If you can get that in some way, then you can stop paying the rent, and when they take you to court you show it to the judge who should (never 100% guaranteed) decide in your favour.

Failing that, if you are still paying the rent you are still the tenant and have a right to enter and to bar workmen from the premises, as well as change the locks. The landlord is not co-operating with you so there is no reason for you to co-operate with him. That might get the landlord's attention and cause him to accept surrender of the tenancy - get it in writing.