Irresponsible Tenant

lynzpower

He also subsequently left the apartment unattended for more than 30 days (another breach of his STA) We can gather and prove this from key fob communal door entry information stored by the concierge office.

( Do you mean AST?)

Out of interest, and I wonder if Dark Blue/tbs know, is this a fair contract term- not to "leave the property unattended for 30 days"

Ie does this not mean that the LL is telling T when they can and cannot go on extended holiday/go overseas with work for a few weeks etc?? What is the potential upshot legally if a tenant does go away for 30 days?

Can anyone tell me is this a common terms in AST?

bitsandpieces

If you've got insurance which covers the damage, I'd just claim on that. If you go to court to sue the tenant for the damage, you may end up paying for legal advice (more costs) and you may not get awarded all the money you want. The ex-tenant may then refuse to pay (more cost and time to try and claim the money) and may turn out not to have the money (you could end up getting your table, legal costs etc. paid off at £1/wk, assuming the ex-tenant doesn't wriggle out of that). The ex-tenant could also move and not give you a contact address - you could pay a professional to find them, but that's more expenses incurred. This process will involve lots of time and stress and could leave you badly out of pocket. Alternatively, claim off the insurance company - should be a far quicker, less risky process even if you do lose a no claims bonus.

tbs624

lynzpower wrote: »

( Do you mean AST?)

Out of interest, and I wonder if Dark Blue/tbs know, is this a fair contract term- not to "leave the property unattended for 30 days"

Ie does this not mean that the LL is telling T when they can and cannot go on extended holiday/go overseas with work for a few weeks etc?? What is the potential upshot legally if a tenant does go away for 30 days?

Can anyone tell me is this a common terms in AST?

Depends on the precise wording of the full clause. The OFT guidance is that it should say something like "not to leave the property unoccupied for more than xx days, without giving written /reasonable notice to the LL".

If it's to tie in with a specific insurance requirement then the LL has to provide a copy of the policy for the T - they can't just use the blanket " not to do anything which contravenes the LLs insurance policy" without the T having sight of the policy content.

Apart from an insurance issue, one of the main dangers of a T popping off somewhere for an extended period without LL notification, is that numpty LLs may assume tenant abandonment of the property.

StudentMoneySaver

boxer3 wrote: »

Thanks tbs624. Yes he did call the police but didnt call us to inform of us of the incident or damage to the property's contents. Obviously he would not have been feeling well so it seems harsh to judge him on this, but we only found out what had happened 2 days later when the Apartment Concierge Office called to say the police had attended the apartment. We then called him.

He had returned to his parent's house in London. He also subsequently left the apartment unattended for more than 30 days (another breach of his STA) We can gather and prove this from key fob communal door entry information stored by the concierge office.


He has made no effort to inform of us of any of this, and again this breaks the terms of his STA. I do see that it's not relevant whether the people he brought back were strangers but I originally commented on this because it seems to reinforce....

'and that breach was the defendant’s fault rather than unforeseeable or outside his reasonable control' - in my original post.

I would have thought people who you dont know and choose to invite into your home are more likely to be out of the tenant's 'reasonable control' but perhaps this is not relavant legally?

ps. Im thinking of calling Naos and asking them for commission on next months sales. This certainly seems to have attracted them some attention. Lol

That does not show anything conclusively. The tenant may not have left the building for over a month.

ILW

StudentMoneySaver wrote: »

That does not show anything conclusively. The tenant may not have left the building for over a month.

I think I would just stay in staring at a £1500 coffee table in disbelief. It appears I do not hang out in the best circles though.

Brb

As a tenant I'd be too scared to touch said coffee table (let alone put a cup of coffee on it :eek: )

I would think also that I'd have to inform my contents (and LL soft furnishings/carpets) insurance that they were such expensive items. I'd doubt they'd continue my policy actually. (They had no problems paying for Lino etc when house flooded).

IMO some ppl shouldn't rent out somewhere that was their own home. They are too emotionally tied to it and it smacks of telling your children how to live their lives when they've grown up!

boxer3

Many thanks to those that left helpful and well informed replies. Some of you really are rather stupid though aren't you. Bless you all.

Meatballs

darkblue wrote: »

I severely dislike when landlords put 'no smoking' clauses in contracts. Who are you to dictate someone's life and habits?
The damage is your concern.

Smoking damages the property, it takes extensive cleaning to remove the smell. Repainting, recarpeting etc etc. Even then it can be difficult to eliminate the smell. :mad: Why bother with a clause that says the tenant needs to look after the material state of the property also? Just let them wee and poo on the carpets if that's how they want to live.

Why do you have to prove they have been smoking anyway? You can prove the damage has been done by statements on inventory saying - heavy smoke smell, will require extensive cleaning/replacement of soft furnishings.

wkdhoney

boxer3 wrote: »

Many thanks to those that left helpful and well informed replies. Some of you really are rather stupid though aren't you. Bless you all.

I was reading this thread with interest and really hoped you'd win in the small claims court until this post. How rude? Obviously someone isn't getting any affection at home. :grouphug:

mynameisdave

I don't see what has been said in this thread that is stupid, tbh.

£1,500 for a coffee table is a lot for a £575 deposit.

I carpeted/floored and furnished my entire flat for that price and the deposit is £550. The other advice has been that the clauses in your contract may have been broken, but are legally unenforceable.

You might stand a good chance of keeping his whole deposit. But as you have been told you will need receipts to prove that the items are worth as much as you say.

You've been given advice, it may not be what you want to hear but its still advice. It you want a proper professional opinion; well you have to pay for those but they might say the same thing.