tenancy ended by returning keys - advice requested

MissMoneypenny

That's a shame. It's always worth having legal cover on contents insurance. Have you got legal cover on your credit cards or car insurance?

I know what you mean about doing it all yourself: I have done this (against a solicitors firm). The good thing about using solicitors, is that the other side gets punished in the pocket by picking up your legal fees. You can always ask the legal team to keep you in the loop.

Have you tried a "no win, no fee" firm?

jakeyd

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That's a shame. It's always worth having legal cover on contents insurance. Have you got legal cover on your credit cards or car insurance?

I know what you mean about doing it all yourself: I have done this (against a solicitors firm). The good thing about using solicitors, is that the other side gets punished in the pocket by picking up your legal fees. You can always ask the legal team to keep you in the loop.

Have you tried a "no win, no fee" firm?

I haven't yet tried one. I always imagine they're a bit dodgy, or second-rate. This might just be prejudice. And I don't believe in credit cards, and don't run a car

clutton_2

if you want a really fabulous housing advocate... i can private message you her details...... she helped me out tremendously when i was trying to get the tenant from hell out of one of my properties

as a LL - 3 months can seem a fairly reasonable time to get new tenants.. ( i have on occassion waited 7-8 months dependant on the market at the time) especially when so many prospective tenants simply dont turn up, then fail the credit checks, then change their minds, etc etc ....

jakeyd

clutton wrote: »

if you want a really fabulous housing advocate... i can private message you her details...... she helped me out tremendously when i was trying to get the tenant from hell out of one of my properties

as a LL - 3 months can seem a fairly reasonable time to get new tenants.. ( i have on occassion waited 7-8 months dependant on the market at the time) especially when so many prospective tenants simply dont turn up, then fail the credit checks, then change their minds, etc etc ....

Yes, please PM me.

And I take your point about the time taken. I think the shape of my argument is more that the tenancy was surrendered, and the conditions agreed to on surrender were not carried out by the LL.

As a further point, this is a premium property in Central London which I took on the first day it came onto Foxtons' website. It is unlikely that prospective tenants paying 500/week would be failing credit checks and Foxtons have confirmed to me that they had "numerous" offers and did "60-70" viewings.

clutton_2

why on earth would they have done 60-70 viewings ???? madness.......

dopester

I've only glanced through this thread very quickly.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

This may be so, but if I were of a very suspicious mind, I wouldn't put it past a landlord / agent installing a new tenant in quick order, and pocketing the previous tenant's money.

It had 60-70 viewings, yet it was only let when the previous tenancy agreement ran out, so no money refund to the old tenant?

Really sounds like someone could be spinning a line here. I'd be half minded to knock on the door and ask the current tenant when they moved in - but perhaps something subtler than that would be required. If I discovered I'd been lied to by the landlord or especially the agent, there really would be a price to pay. :mad:

jakeyd

clutton wrote: »

why on earth would they have done 60-70 viewings ???? madness.......

I imagine because the LL kept refusing any offer put forward by the agent. I think he might have been saying: I'm not going to get another tenant until the end of the contract. It was only when I found out what was happening, confronted them with it that they got a tenant in, in a week!

I fully accept the LL had the right not to accept my surrender. But then the agents should have told me that rather than that he did and that he wanted to get a new tenant.

jakeyd

dopester wrote: »

I've only glanced through this thread very quickly.



This may be so, but if I were of a very suspicious mind, I wouldn't put it past a landlord / agent installing a new tenant in quick order, and pocketing the previous tenant's money.

It had 60-70 viewings, yet it was only let when the previous tenancy agreement ran out, so no money refund to the old tenant?

Really sounds like someone could be spinning a line here. I'd be half minded to knock on the door and ask the current tenant when they moved in - but perhaps something subtler than that would be required. If I discovered I'd been lied to by the landlord or especially the agent, there really would be a price to pay. :mad:

do you really think Foxtons would do that? I'm pretty certain they got a new tenant when they said they did. What is more likely I think is that the LL moved back in for a bit. But I could never prove that -unless anyone has any ideas.

Fire_Fox

jakeyd wrote: »

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?

It may make a difference, it depends how clear the e-mails are about what each side expected of the other. "the gist" and "I imagine" and "that suggests" are not going to cut the mustard in my view. Do you have evidence (?dated screenshots) that the flat was not marketed as vacant until you threatened legal action?

I agree it is worth having a word with the current tenants about (a) moving in date, (b) if anyone else was living there before them and (c) if the place has had been repaired or redecorated. For Christ's sake be careful, the tenants may tell the landlord you were asking, and the landlord may stand in court and claim you were harassing his tenants. :eek:

Other that that honestly I think you should see this as a learning experience. I have learned the hard way to make a brief note of EVERY business/ formal telephone call I have, to send EVERY formal letter by recorded delivery and keep the receipt. I do not use telephone, e-mail or texting for anything important - it is a bit OCD, but I reckon it has saved me £4K in service charges alone (three year dispute).

franklee

jakeyd wrote: »

Anyone know of any good solicitors' firms who I might contact to see if they might be interested.

Whilst I sympathise with your position I've no idea if you've a case or not. You could try asking Tessa, she has a range of fees and ways to join depending on your needs:

http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk/