Landlady wants to move deposit! Please help

clutton_2

there are whole books written about quiet enjoyment.... anyone here read one ?

rl290

Hello,
Thanks all for the help. I thought I'd just post an update for your reading pleasure... the LL met with the tenant and explained that she wanted to move the deposit because the estate agent who currently hold the deposit (one rather notorious aggressive southern agent...) have been slow in releasing funds. She claimed that allowing her to hold the funds would allow her to fix things in the flat quicker... she also denied wanting the sell the flat

My friend replied that:
1) There are already methods set in place in the contract for the release of funds for various purposes. This is not his concern.
2) Why, if she is not selling up, are there viewings?

The outcome is that my friend said he might accept moving the deposit BUT only if it is to one of the tenancy deposit schemes (if this is possible for a non AST?) and for some very favourable improvements to the flat. The LL is looking into his proposal.

R

G_M

Wisely done!
The LL should not have to use the deposit to 'fix things in the flat'. Either the things to be fixed are her responsibility or they are the tenants responsibility (he broke something) and the LL should be billing the tenant.

Either way, it should not come from the deposit (unless the tenant breaks something and then refuses to pay).

princeofpounds

Does the right to quiet enjoyment override anything in the contract agreement?

YES

Quiet enjoyment is not complicated. It is a statutory right.

A clause in the contract where you agree to viewings is nothing more than an agreement to viewings until further notice. It can be rescinded at any time, because statute always trumps contract.

Think about it - if it were not so, then you could contract anyone to break the law with impunity, and that would be a nonsense. I cannot contract you to murder me. You either do, and break statute law, or you don't. It doesn't matter what I have written in a contract.

clutton_2

if the deposit scheme will not accept it - and i doubt they will.. why not ask if the LL will deposit it with her solicitor

rl290

clutton wrote: »

if the deposit scheme will not accept it - and i doubt they will.. why not ask if the LL will deposit it with her solicitor

This was indeed the other proposal put forward. In any case though, I am sceptical that the LL will come back at all! I'll keep you posted!

R

N79

G_M wrote: »

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.

You are quite right that the "quiet enjoyment" is not statutory. It is a common law right but I would need to get the books out to find out its exact origin. If I find a reference I will post here.

G_M

princeofpounds wrote: »

YES

Quiet enjoyment is not complicated. It is a statutory right.

A clause in the contract where you agree to viewings is nothing more than an agreement to viewings until further notice. It can be rescinded at any time, because statute always trumps contract.

Think about it - if it were not so, then you could contract anyone to break the law with impunity, and that would be a nonsense. I cannot contract you to murder me. You either do, and break statute law, or you don't. It doesn't matter what I have written in a contract.

Sorry, I am 99.9% certain this is incorrect p of p. Can you identify the statute? I can't, and I looked! And if it is in statute, chances are it would apply to ASTs, not Bare Contractual Tenancies like this.

See my posts 13 and 15. Happy to be corrected though - it's all part of learning!

N79

N79 wrote: »

You are quite right that the "quiet enjoyment" is not statutory. It is a common law right but I would need to get the books out to find out its exact origin. If I find a reference I will post here.

G_M check out http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-Enjoyment-Partingtons-Harrassment-Anti-social/dp/1903307147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265719591&sr=8-1 as one of the more comprehensive books on the subject.

Remember that it is not an absolute right but is used as a principle in deciding what interference with a persons property etc is reasonable.

The trivial nature of most breaches of quiet enjoyment in English residential LL and T disputes means that in reality there is little a T can do to enforce their right. Once we enter the realm of harrassment and illegal eviction that all changes but the normal disputes seen here of the inspection / repair visit done without proper notice etc are basically too trivial for any remedy.

G_M

N79 wrote: »

G_M check out http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-Enjoyment-Partingtons-Harrassment-Anti-social/dp/1903307147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265719591&sr=8-1 as one of the more comprehensive books on the subject.

Remember that it is not an absolute right but is used as a principle in deciding what interference with a persons property etc is reasonable.

Thanks. Hopefully my library will have a copy. Might help me sleep at night!