Landlady wants to move deposit! Please help

clutton_2

there are government moves afoot to increase the level of rent to £100,000 per annum.. giving many more tenants better protections..

G_M

G_M - Is 'quiet enjoyment' not applicable here with regards to viewings?

Well, I've had a fascinating time trying to establish where the right to 'quiet enjoyment' originates. It clearly exists but I'm still not sure why...

My belief, however, is that it is NOT a statutory right. The implication is that, although the statutory rights granted to AST tenants are denied to tenants of Bare Contractual Tenancies, the right to Quiet Enjoyment WOULD still apply in a Bare Contractual Tenancy.

The right appears to arise from both 1) a covenant in the lease (where applicable) and 2) an implied obligation arising from the granting of a lease.

"Covenants of quiet enjoyment arise in one of two ways. On the grant of the lease the
Landlord has an implied obligation to provide the tenant with quiet enjoyment. More
usually, a lease will contain an express obligation widening or narrowing the scope of the

liability."

Also see:

Judgments - London Borough of Southwark and Another v. Mills and Others (A.P.)
Baxter (A.P.) v. Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Camden

"there seems to be little if any difference between the scope of the covenant and that of the obligation which lies upon any grantor not to derogate from his grant. The principle is the same in each case: a man may not give with one hand and take away with the other. Whether a particular matter falls within the scope of the covenant for quiet enjoyment depends upon the proper construction of the covenant. As ordinarily drafted, however, the covenant shares two critical features in common with the implied obligation. The first is that they are both prospective in their operation. The obligation undertaken by the grantor and covenantor alike is not to do anything after the date of the grant which will derogate from the grant or substantially interfere with the grantee's enjoyment of the subject matter of the grant: see Anderson v. Oppenheimer (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 602. "


So I hope that clears that up!:rotfl:

ps - if anyone can point to a specific statute on the issue, I'd be interested to see it.

clutton_2

might you be able to put that into english for us please ??

G_M

Urrr.. je m'excuse mais mon Anglais is tres limitee.

OK, let's see:

1) AST tenants have many rights provided by statute (sorry - laws passed by parliament).
2) Tenants paying over £25K pa are denied these rights, as they do not have an AST, they have Bare Contractual Tenancies
3) Bare Contractual Tenancies, as the name implies, only grant (give) the rights provided by the contract itself ( so none of the 'extra' rights provided by stat..sorry, laws)
4) however the rights provided by the contract itself may be either 'explicit' (ie written clearly in the contract) or 'implicit' (ie the law says that although they are not written down they are fundamental to a contract)

So in the court case above, the judge ruled (decided) that where a landlord gave a lease to a tenant, there was an implication that this meant he was giving that tenant quiet enjoyment, irrespective of whether there was a clause in the lease saying this.

He also said that the meaning of quiet enjoyment "was extended to cover any substantial interference with the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the land", and "It warranted freedom from disturbance by adverse claimants to the property" (or, in English, the LL can't come round whenever he wants upsetting the tenant!)

Ca va?
('course our tame solicitor Richard might be along soon putting me right!)

wannabe_sybil

[QUOTE=G_M;29603961
'course our tame solicitor Richard might be along soon putting me right![/QUOTE]

I don't think Richard is tame - I think he is rather dashing actually.

clutton_2

mercy buckets GM !

et vous wannabe sybill - j'agree - le gorgeous Richard est tres tres ... je ne sais quoi - mais, tres delicieuse...

n'est ce pas ??

wannabe_sybil

clutton wrote: »

mercy buckets GM !

et vous wannabe sybill - j'agree - le gorgeous Richard est tres tres ... je ne sais quoi - mais, tres delicieuse...

n'est ce pas ??

Il est un bon bouche!!!

clutton_2

bouche ? as in the childhood expletive "fermez votre bouche"! - or is my ancient french letting me down ??

Cissi

Vous me faites tous rigoler là!

Just adding some personal experience to this: we were in a similar tenancy for the last few years until last summer and found out thanks to this forum that although the LA had issued a document entitled "Assured Shorthold Tenancy" we weren't protected by the Housing Act in question as our rent was over the limit (SW London).

Our deposit was never held by the LA but always in the name of the LL who turned out to be a fairly shady character. We had a lot of reason to believe that we'd have to fight hard for the return of our deposit. To our surprise it "only" took a couple of months and a lot of excuses, but we eventually got every penny of it. Having said that, the first cheque bounced and the LL then admitted that he was broke and needed the sale of another of his houses to complete to clear the funds, so we could easily have lost it all.

Knowing what I now do I'd be wary of renting again in the UK unless they do increase the levels or we were to move to a less expensive part of the country!

Cissi

clutton wrote: »

bouche ? as in the childhood expletive "fermez votre bouche"! - or is my ancient french letting me down ??

Une bonne bouchee, peut-être?

Edited: my accent aigu doesn't work in this forum