Agency and Landlord Deny Receiving Notice...

tbs624

So two letters from you to LA/LL, on the topic of notice?

one on 27 April, without sight of copy contract?

(then no reply from LL/LA until 27 May)

one on 31 May, after receiving copy contract?

So LL/LA definitely received 1st one, as there was a response, albeit a late one, and it's the second one that they deny having received?

What date did they start marketing the property/facilitating viewings?

Don't feel the need to respond to that recent email btw - they're on the broken record loop in the hope you will back down. Instead concentrate on this as it looks like its letter before action time:

mooks wrote: »

I'm currently trying to confirm the details of my deposit - I have a letter from the LA stating it's held with a DPS, but haven't been provided with any formal certification of this. I'm going to contact the scheme tomorrow to confirm my money's held with them, and will simply lodge a dispute with them if they can confirm that.

TDS, DPS, mydeposits - have you done it? Take you 30 mins max to check with all of them and get confirmation either way.

clutton_2

""Landlord's just e-mailed me by the way, asking for the recorded delivery details for when I sent the notice. ""

just ignore it.....

mooks

tbs624 wrote: »

So two letters from you to LA/LL, on the topic of notice?

one on 27 April, without sight of copy contract?

(then no reply from LL/LA until 27 May)

one on 31 May, after receiving copy contract?

Yes - the letter of the 27th of April was sent to the LL - which specifically states that I had not received the contract, hence my being unable to give a firm date for moving out - and he replied on the 27th of May. Then with the information that the AST gave me with regard to notice and the break clause, I sent the letter of the 31st of May off to just the LA.

tbs624 wrote: »

So LL/LA definitely received 1st one, as there was a response, albeit a late one, and it's the second one that they deny having received?

The LL replied to me by e-mail - starting with the usual 'sorry to hear you're moving out...', so I'd say he definitely understood that I was looking to vacate. When the LA started e-mailing me about this whole issue, I told them when I served notice and they denied receiving it. I re-sent the letter by e-mail, and they've decided that the date I re-sent it is now the date they formally received notification.

tbs624 wrote: »

What date did they start marketing the property/facilitating viewings?

The local branch of the agency did the appraisal of the property to assess the market value on the 23rd of June, and the earliest date I have in my diary for when they started viewings was on the 3rd of July - but there may have been some before then.

tbs624 wrote: »

TDS, DPS, mydeposits - have you done it? Take you 30 mins max to check with all of them and get confirmation either way.

It's held with TDSL, which redirects to mydeposits when I type in the web address I was given. I had foolishly asked the LA for specific details (e.g. certification of my deposit), but they haven't replied. Surprise...

clutton wrote: »

""Landlord's just e-mailed me by the way, asking for the recorded delivery details for when I sent the notice. ""

just ignore it.....

I've told the LA so many times what the situation is it isn't funny - so to now find they haven't passed this information on to the LL is crazy. I really don't think they're talking to each other...

clutton_2

""I had foolishly asked the LA for specific details (e.g. certification of my deposit), but they haven't replied. ""

forget the "foolish bit" - the LL/La has a statutory duty to provide you with the Prescribed Information about the tenancy deposit scheme they are using to protect your money .... dont mention this at the moment, it may well become a useful weapon later on down the line....

mooks

clutton wrote: »

""I had foolishly asked the LA for specific details (e.g. certification of my deposit), but they haven't replied. ""

forget the "foolish bit" - the LL/La has a statutory duty to provide you with the Prescribed Information about the tenancy deposit scheme they are using to protect your money .... dont mention this at the moment, it may well become a useful weapon later on down the line....

I like your style - sometimes it's always good to keep something in reserve - give them enough rope and everything...

mooks

It's me again - sorry I haven't been more active - it's the usual too much work story...

So the judgement came through last week - and the arbitration service found in my favour...

But they still awarded the LL a further month's rent...

Their finding was that due to the comprehensiveness of my evidence, it was more likely than unlikely that I had served notice on the date that I'd said, and the LL/LA was unable to prove that I hadn't served notice. They even said it wasn't reasonable to expect me to use recorded delivery.

There was some discussion however, about the fact that my notice period wasn't the full two months required, and they said that even though the LL/LA hadn't provided my AST - having requested it three times and they still failed to do so - and that the LL took a month to respond to my letter requesting confirmation of the notice period - that this was no reason to shorten my notice period, and that the LL/LA hadn't agreed to shorten this period.

Fine, fine - if they want to take things that far, fine...

But they go on to say that having vacated the property by the 19th of July, that I was liable for a further month's rent from the 19th of July until the 19th of August.

I don't understand this...

If they accept that notice was sent on the 31st of May and likely received on the 1st of June, then my notice period would cover up until the 1st of August?

Put simply, I don't understand why I'm being held liable for a payment of rent for a period beyond when the arbitration service accepts notice was served and the property had been vacated.

Surely - if they want to go as far as saying that I was liable for the period between my vacating and the strict end of my notice period, that this should be pro-rated, rather than paying a full month's rent?

I've put in a complaint to the arbitration service, as this just doesn't seem... fair...?

BitterAndTwisted

Your tenancy started on the 19th of the month so you should have moved out on or before the 18th. By moving out on the 19th you became liable for an additional month's rent and that's why the arbitrators have awarded it to the LL. That's horribly bad luck but it appears on the face of it to be correct.

mooks

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Your tenancy started on the 19th of the month so you should have moved out on or before the 18th. By moving out on the 19th you became liable for an additional month's rent and that's why the arbitrators have awarded it to the LL. That's horribly bad luck but it appears on the face of it to be correct.

Thanks for the reply - it's much appreciated.

From memory, I vacated on the 18th of July, and this was so as to coincide with the end of the rental period - and I had made this clear to the LL. It looks like this issue has arisen from the fact that if my notice was officially served on the 31st of May/1st of June that I was liable for some payment beyond my moving out date. If they want to be that strict about it and ignore the fact I had never received my AST and so wasn't aware of the notice period, and that the LL hadn't responded to a reasonable request for this information to allow me to serve notice in that time, then that's fine - but to charge a further three weeks' rent beyond the end of the notice period doesn't seem appropriate.

Say for example I had served notice up until a point that didn't fall exactly on the last day of the rental period though (let's say the start of the following month), I would make arrangements to pro-rata my payment to reflect that fact. I don't really see why the arbitration service wouldn't do the same...

BitterAndTwisted

A fair-minded person could decode to pro-rate the rent and/or the notice period but that's not the way it works for the most part: stay one day into the next rental period and the whole of the month's rent is due. If you are absolutely certain that you vacated on the 18th and can prove it you could have argued that the extra month's rent is not due and payable but by agreeing to go through the arbitration process you have accepted that their decision is binding.

mooks

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

A fair-minded person could decode to pro-rate the rent and/or the notice period but that's not the way it works for the most part: stay one day into the next rental period and the whole of the month's rent is due. If you are absolutely certain that you vacated on the 18th and can prove it you could have argued that the extra month's rent is not due and payable but by agreeing to go through the arbitration process you have accepted that their decision is binding.

I have proof in the sense that my final utilities bills (including Council Tax) list my leaving date as the 18th of July, but aside from that, I'm not sure what would be admissible.

If the worst came to the worst, I would simply hope that the arbitration service would recognise that I had been delayed from formally serving notice in light of my LL's failure to respond to a reasonable request for information. I made my intention to move out in the middle of July clear in a letter to him which was sent at the end of April, but made it clear that having not received the AST I wasn't aware of my notice requirements and so wasn't able to formally serve notice. I would generally expect a response within 10 working days - a whole month seems to be pushing it, especially in light of the fact I'd asked for the AST twice before then and not received it.

Had I simply said that I was giving 6 weeks' notice instead of the required 8 with no underlying reason for this, then I could understand them pushing a harder line, but having been reasonable and thorough up until this point, and having shown a clear desire to fulfil the contractual requirements but having been denied the opportunity by the LL, then I think that to require that I pay a further month's rent in the circumstances is unreasonable.