tenancy ended by returning keys - advice requested

jakeyd

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You signed a legally binding contract, the landlord (or his agent) cannot enter the property until it has been formally surrendered which means in writing with the keys returned. The letting agents cannot simply market the property and let themselves in with a tenant in occupation, this would breach the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. IMO a large part of the problem is you have taken a wholly casual approach to a formal situation.

I have an email from them saying they have conducted 60-70 viewings after they required me to send back the keys. Did they breach the Act then?

This is a desirable property in a very good central London location, at a rent of £500/week - I assumed there would be no shortage of prospective tenants.

I appreciate I should have been more formal, but I was assured by the agents they would find a new tenant 'within 2 weeks at the most.' I have kept in constant contact with them, and they gave me the run-around by several times saying 'this will be sorted by the end of the week', and this mounts up.

jakeyd

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You signed a legally binding contract, the landlord (or his agent) cannot enter the property until it has been formally surrendered which means in writing with the keys returned. The letting agents cannot simply market the property and let themselves in with a tenant in occupation, this would breach the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. There would have been all sorts of ramifications had they signed up a new tenant and you changed your mind. IMO a large part of the problem is you have taken a wholly casual approach to a formal situation.

Also I returned the keys by special delivery, along with a note that I was sending them as requested.

Jowo_2

Take the landlord to court, and this will end the mystery and conflict that surrounds the proposal that a landlord who accepts an early surrender of the tenancy agreement is obliged to mitigate their losses with active marketing of the property to minimise the void period. Or if a tenant potentially has to pay to the end of the fixed term simply because it wasn't formalised.

Good luck. Let us know how you get on.

jakeyd

Jowo wrote: »

Take the landlord to court, and this will end the mystery and conflict that surrounds the proposal that a landlord who accepts an early surrender of the tenancy agreement is obliged to mitigate their losses with active marketing of the property to minimise the void period. Or if a tenant potentially has to pay to the end of the fixed term simply because it wasn't formalised.

Good luck. Let us know how you get on.

Thank you - I'm doing the Letter Before Action today, and I'll update on progress as it happens.

clutton_2

i think taking on Foxtons will be a costly enterprise as they will be bound to attempt to take it to a higher court than the Small Claims Court where you will be responsible for their costs if you lose......

Jowo_2

clutton wrote: »

i think taking on Foxtons will be a costly enterprise as they will be bound to attempt to take it to a higher court than the Small Claims Court where you will be responsible for their costs if you lose......

but surely the OPs contract is with the landlord so the legal action should be against tjem - the agent is just an intermediary and the OP has proof that it was the landlord that instructed the agent (with whom they had a contract) not to start to market the empty property until months after the tenant had left?

clutton_2

foxtons will advise the LL to get it sent to a higher court then....... in an attempt to put off tenant taking it to court....

Fire_Fox

jakeyd wrote: »

I have an email from them saying they have conducted 60-70 viewings after they required me to send back the keys. Did they breach the Act then?

To some extent that depends on how clear your note with the keys was, and whether there is e-mail evidence that you were surrendering the tenancy. The law is quite clear that a tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment, that actions such as the letting agent entering your home with a key are harassment. If you have surrendered the property then clearly it is no longer your home, so Foxtons will (probably) not have breached the law. Surrendering the tenancy is not the same as being released from your contractual obligations if that is what you are hoping.

jakeyd wrote: »

Also I returned the keys by special delivery, along with a note that I was sending them as requested.

jakeyd

Fire_Fox wrote: »

To some extent that depends on how clear your note with the keys was, and whether there is e-mail evidence that you were surrendering the tenancy. The law is quite clear that a tenant has the right to quiet enjoyment, that actions such as the letting agent entering your home with a key are harassment. If you have surrendered the property then clearly it is no longer your home, so Foxtons will (probably) not have breached the law. Surrendering the tenancy is not the same as being released from your contractual obligations if that is what you are hoping.

Do you think it makes a difference if I have email evidence I was asked to surrender the tenancy?

Something along the lines of I agreed to surrender the tenancy on the understanding that the property was being marketed for immediate occupancy and that the LL would not unreasonably refuse an offer from a suitable tenant ? Certainly that is the gist of the emails exchanged between the agent and I.

I imagine that what actually happened was that they didn't tell the landlord anything until they found another tenant, then presented it as a fait accompli (they lie to everyone, I believe), at which point the LL probably told them that he didn't want to accept the surrender. What is interesting is when I got very annoyed in March and threatened legal action, that is when they then changed it to marketing it as vacant! That suggests they are not that confident, that they did something wrong. And even though they were at fault i'm thinking I should go after the landlord as they were acting as his agents.

Something I'm also concerned about would be that Foxtons would falsify evidence - I have emails from them which are pretty clear, for example 'We found a suitable tenant it fell through when the landlord's circumstances changed re:move in date'. And then another one which said 'The landlord wanted to use the property so we were marketing it for moving in in June'. Presumably I might be able to use that as evidence that the tenancy was terminated as the LL took possession?

jakeyd

clutton wrote: »

foxtons will advise the LL to get it sent to a higher court then....... in an attempt to put off tenant taking it to court....

The thing is, I know everyone says this, but it's not the money here, it's the principle. I could afford to take it to a higher court - maybe it might be worth engaging a solicitor and going down that road immediately? Would show them I'm serious...and if, and I know it's a big if I won I imagine I might be awarded costs.

The problem is that the solicitor I talked to yesterday (some boutique landlord and tenant firm, pain smith I think) was quite dismissive. But it's difficult in a short phone conversation to get the gist, and I think she got hung up on something called apportionment, when I think unreasonable behaviour might be more fruitful.

I think the problem is when people first hear what I'm talking about they think, oh whinging tenant complaining after the fact, without looking at the full story. What I'm annoyed about is that I was essentially deceived into giving up the flat with a promise of finding a new tenant - a promise which the agent should not have given. Is there any way of pursuing foxtons through NALS or ARLA (I imagine they're pretty toothless, but I have incontrovertible evidence they have lied to me)?