Can anyone help

silvercar

There is no obligation for a landlord to mitigate rental losses.

See court case here:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3090514/Unpaid-Rent-Claim--Landlord-Need-Not-Mitigate-Loss

princeofpounds

There is no obligation for a landlord to mitigate rental losses.

Whilst you might be right, it's important to note that the example you give here is a business suing a business over a commercial contractual lease.

Consumer legislation and AST tenancies are very different to that example, so I would need to see something directly relevant. I have heard plenty of quite credible sources talking about mitigation in the past, but it might be one of those 'memes' that isn't fully verified.

princeofpounds

Where a landlord terminates the lease by taking possession of the premises or otherwise doing an act inconsistent with the continuance of the tenancy, he will lose his right to the rent under the original tenancy. He cannot therefore claim damages for any reduction in the rent from a new tenant or in respect of any void periods.

From reading around on the case you have just mentioned, the above paragraph I came across as part of the commentary on the judgement is quite interesting. It would appear to mean that if the landlord does something (like renovating the property) that is inconsistent with the tenancy continuing then it is a defacto evidence of termination.

Again with the caveat that it is talking about an entirely different type of lease legislation.

roger196

silvercar wrote: »

There is no obligation for a landlord to mitigate rental losses.

See court case here:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3090514/Unpaid-Rent-Claim--Landlord-Need-Not-Mitigate-Loss

Quick read of this case, suggests business letting not private letting. More importantly this case rested on the fact that the landlord had not repossessed the property. I would distinguish here as the LL has repossessed to carry out repairs.
Crucial for tenant to get photo evidence of state of property and details of what work is being carried out.
Would be worth reading full transcript of case rather than someones summary.

princeofpounds

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15388

An interesting discussion of the issue here - it gets into Reichman v Gauntlett later on (around page 5)

It would seem that the above judgement probably does apply to residential leases too.

But on page 6 there is important information about what constitutes surrender of a tenancy and what doesn't. Basically if the Landlord accepts the keys back with an intention of a change in possession that is enough to end a tenancy.

Now I would suggest that (assuming he has taken the keys back) then taking over the whole house for works to the point where it is unshowable to tenants is indication of his intention to regain possession of the property.

In legalese, I think it's something like the landlord has taken possession in such a manner as to estop him from denying the tenancy is at an end.

Unfortunately this is a subjective test.

Still, if this doesn't get the OP anywhere in terms of stopping paying, I would certainly recommend re-entry and kicking out the workers (as well as documenting the damage they caused if deposit is still outstanding).

lisa31uk

thx 4 all the replies yes they have the keys bk and wont tell me anything the letting firm who the landord uses wont even answer my calls or anything i rang them this morning left a message with the secretary saying why you telling work been done but when people ring up to view work is being done and its not viewable until i get a reply from them im holding back the rent i know ive got it to pay but im entititled also to communication off them