Aggressive lawyer landlord

Newbuck

Hi
This is my first post so hi to all!!!!!

I felt I had to reply to this post as I have a few properties that I let out and also used to manage a letting agency. So I believe I may have some usefull advice to offer.

The first is that if you have signed a 6month Tenancy agreement then you are legally liable to take the property and pay the rent for the full 6months. The same as the landlord who must let you stay in the property for at least 6months as long as you look after it and pay the rent.

I believe that you moved out less than 3months into the agreement? You should have sent a letter to the landlord stating that you wished to surrender the Tenancy. The landlord should have also asked for this in writing as he technically cannot rent out the property to anyone else as long as your agreement has not been surrendered.

If we say that you did in writing or verbally surrender you Tenancy, you are liable for the rent up untill the property is re-let AND the letting agency costs. These could be up to a months rent. You would also have to pay for any cleaning costs, to bring the property up to the same level of cleanliness as when you first moved in.

Another thing to remember is look in you tenancy aggrement about vacating the property. If it says you must pay to have the property cleaned or the carpets shampoo'd, then that is what you must do. After all you have signed a legally binding document.

Another poster stated that they never pay the last months rent. This is not advisable, virtually all tenancy aggreements will state that the deposit cannot be used to pay the rent by the tenant. This money is to be used for repairs and cleaning. The landlord can use it for rent only if you have defaulted on paying your rent.

I have been asked for references from a number of letting agencies and referencing agencies. One of the questions which is asked is "did the tenant use the deposit to pay the last months rent" I unfortunateley had to say "yes" on one occasion and the tenant failed their referencing.

I must say that your landlord is acting very unreasonably and doesnt seem to know what they can and cannot do!!!! I would speak to the CAB and get one of their solicitors to write you a letter. You are entitled to your rent and deposit back minus the things above. The landlord must prove that they have spent money on the cleaning, repairs, agency costs and must give the money back in a reasonable amount of time.

Sorry for being such a long post,
hope it is usefull

Will

Tassotti

Let's see if the previous posters actually listen this time.

prudryden

Newbuck (Will) - If you have time, would you mind having a go at my thread "YUK- Whose reposibility? on Home buying, renting etc forum?
Many thanks and sorry for Off Topic.

barnaby-bear

Newbuck wrote:

Hi
This is my first post so hi to all!!!!!

I felt I had to reply to this post as I have a few properties that I let out and also used to manage a letting agency. So I believe I may have some usefull advice to offer.

Another thing to remember is look in you tenancy aggrement about vacating the property. If it says you must pay to have the property cleaned or the carpets shampoo'd, then that is what you must do. After all you have signed a legally binding document.
Will

Can I just point out even if you did sign it it won't be legally binding on that point, clauses that demand you PAY for cleaning are deemed unfair by OFT and are unenforcable and shouldn't be there, a LL/LA can only demand or enforce that property is cleaned to a standard - be that by you, your mum or professionals they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT BE demanding you PAY or produce a receipt.

This is a so called professional posting - and yet these clauses creep in... hum

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:rFiF3xqaVS0J:www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DAAEFE58-1AAB-422A-AFED-BDE6C654A4EE/0/oft356.pdf+OFT+unfair+terms+guidance&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

prudryden

barnaby-bear wrote:

Can I just point out even if you did sign it it won't be legally binding on that point, clauses that demand you PAY for cleaning are deemed unfair by OFT and are unenforcable and shouldn't be there, a LL/LA can only demand or enforce that property is cleaned to a standard - be that by you, your mum or professionals they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT BE demanding you PAY or produce a receipt.

This is a so called professional posting - and yet these clauses creep in... hum

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:rFiF3xqaVS0J:www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DAAEFE58-1AAB-422A-AFED-BDE6C654A4EE/0/oft356.pdf+OFT+unfair+terms+guidance&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Barnaby - I thought I read that these were guidance only and that the flat should be returned in the same state as when the tenants moved in. I, personally, an happy with that. The problem arises when the LL has had the flat professionally cleaned. If the tenant has the same tools that professional cleaners have,. e.g. strong carpet steam cleaner, the special machine that cleans and de greases ovens (I forget what it is called), and the layman's quality of cleaning is the same as the professional - then I am more than happy to say you did a fantastic job. I am also very willing to have a little give and take on most things, especially if they had been good tenants. What's your feeling on that scenario?

whambamboo

Newbuck wrote:

Hi
This is my first post so hi to all!!!!!

I felt I had to reply to this post as I have a few properties that I let out and also used to manage a letting agency. So I believe I may have some usefull advice to offer.

The first is that if you have signed a 6month Tenancy agreement then you are legally liable to take the property and pay the rent for the full 6months. The same as the landlord who must let you stay in the property for at least 6months as long as you look after it and pay the rent.

While that is true, the landlord also has a legal liability to mitigate his losses (this. If after staying a property for 2 months you tell the landlord that you have to leave in one month, the landlord would not be able to simply do nothing and sue you for 3 month's rent. He would be required to show he had mitigated his losses by attempting to relet the property.

Here's what the Office of Fair Trading says

"We would object to a term in a fixed term tenancy that requires a tenant who leaves early, without the landlord's agreement, to pay rent for the remainder of the period in full. Although a landlord is normally entitled to the rent for the whole of the term, whether or not the tenant remains in occupation, a tenant may have a valid defence to a claim for rent. In those circumstances such a term would be an excessive penalty. This would also allow landlords to escape their obligation to reduce (or 'mitigate') their loss, by re-letting the property to another tenant."

"Tenants rarely know that landlords are required to mitigate, or reduce, their loss, and may believe that landlords or agents can claim more than they are really entitled to. In general, it is the duty of the party who claims damages for breach of contract to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising."

I believe that you moved out less than 3months into the agreement? You should have sent a letter to the landlord stating that you wished to surrender the Tenancy. The landlord should have also asked for this in writing as he technically cannot rent out the property to anyone else as long as your agreement has not been surrendered.

If we say that you did in writing or verbally surrender you Tenancy, you are liable for the rent up untill the property is re-let AND the letting agency costs.

This is correct in respect of the loss of rent until re-letting occurs, although again it's worth noting that the landlord must mitigate his losses and seek to find a tenant. If he was not seeking a new tenant then he was not seeking to mitigate his losses, and cannot claim the rent.

In addition, it is unlikely that the landlord would be able to claim letting agent costs (perhaps the judge would award part costs), as he would be liable for them at the end of six months when he looked for a new tenant anyway.

Another thing to remember is look in you tenancy aggrement about vacating the property. If it says you must pay to have the property cleaned or the carpets shampoo'd, then that is what you must do. After all you have signed a legally binding document.

This is not the case. The contract is governed by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Act. If the terms are unfair, they are not legally binding at all. Requiring a house to be professionally cleaned is an unfair term, because it subjects the tenant to excessive cost.

See

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2003/PN+54-03.htm

which specifically says

"a term requiring the tenant to pay for professional cleaning of the premises and its contents without allowing the tenant to clean these, to a good standard, himself"

is unfair. I.e. the tenant is entitled to clean the property himself, and such a term is unfair. I believe that if a landlord had such a term in his contract, the tenant would not be able to clean the property himself, but would also not be liable to pay for the landlords' costs either, because the term is unfair.

I must say that your landlord is acting very unreasonably and doesnt seem to know what they can and cannot do!!!! I would speak to the CAB and get one of their solicitors to write you a letter. You are entitled to your rent and deposit back minus the things above. The landlord must prove that they have spent money on the cleaning, repairs, agency costs and must give the money back in a reasonable amount of time.

I would sue for return of all past rent, and deposit, with no cleaning costs, agency costs.

The landlord and tenant have agreed to continue the agreement until the end of the contract, which is fine, but the landlord has commited a fundamental breach of the contract in the first instance by not allowing the tenant to live in the house anymore.

The lack of access to the house being rented is a fundamental breach, and no rent should be liable from the point at which this happened.

There are only two possible interpretations:

* either the tenant agreed to move out and pay the rent until the landlord found a new tenant (no such thing was agreed), in which case the landlord had a duty to mitigate the loss and re-advertise immediately, which was not done, and so the landlord has no entitlement to the rent because she didn't fulfil her legal duties

or

* the tenant has agreed to stay in the property for six months, but the landlord has effectively terminated the lease, firstly by denying the tenant access to the property, and secondly by actually renting it out to someone else

Either way I'd be sueing for deposit + rent since the day I'd moved out. I'd probably settle for something a little short of it, but it would be in this general ballpark.

whambamboo

prudryden wrote:

Barnaby - I thought I read that these were guidance only and that the flat should be returned in the same state as when the tenants moved in. I, personally, an happy with that. The problem arises when the LL has had the flat professionally cleaned. If the tenant has the same tools that professional cleaners have,. e.g. strong carpet steam cleaner, the special machine that cleans and de greases ovens (I forget what it is called), and the layman's quality of cleaning is the same as the professional - then I am more than happy to say you did a fantastic job. I am also very willing to have a little give and take on most things, especially if they had been good tenants. What's your feeling on that scenario?

It depends on whether a judge would consider that a special expensive machine to clean an oven is proportionate and fair. The OFT suggests that a 'good standard' would suffice. In this I'm not sure that this is reasonable - Mr. Muscle would do an adequate job.

And tenants do not have to restore the flat to the state it was when they moved in. They are entitled to 'fair wear and tear'.

You sound a bit 'eager', even ARLA, the body for landlords, says at
http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_with_deps_disps_dams.pdf:

Fair wear and tear – this means making an allowance for: -

1. The original age, quality and condition of any item at commencement of the tenancy
2. The average useful lifespan to value ratio (depreciation) of the item
3. The reasonable expected usage of such an item
4. The number and type of occupants in the property
5. The length of the tenants occupancy
It follows therefore (and is an established legal tenet) that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for havingany part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, “…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy.”

Newbuck

whambamboo wrote:

It depends on whether a judge would consider that a special expensive machine to clean an oven is proportionate and fair. The OFT suggests that a 'good standard' would suffice. In this I'm not sure that this is reasonable - Mr. Muscle would do an adequate job.

And tenants do not have to restore the flat to the state it was when they moved in. They are entitled to 'fair wear and tear'.

You sound a bit 'eager', even ARLA, the body for landlords, says at
http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_with_deps_disps_dams.pdf:

I would argue that dirt in the carpet, burnt food on the cooker and a dirty scum ring on the bath, do NOT come under the mantle of "fair wear and tear".

The above was discussed during a letting agency course that I attended,some 5 years ago. The tutors viewpoint was :-

If the dirt wasn't there when the tenant moved in, then it is something that they must remove. They either need to leave the property in the same level of cleanliness that they found it, or expect for the landlord to have it cleaned at the tenants cost.

Other letting agents on the course said how they had resorted to taking pictures and video recording the cleanliness and condition of properties each time a property was let. This was due to arguments from departing tenants who had had cleaning bills from the agencies. In the tenants eyes the property was left in a clean enough condition.

Cleanlines is after all very subjective.

macmonkey

Thanks for the replies so far. The saga continues.

Sent off the letter requesting my money back, which wasn't responded to. Tried calling - left a message. Sent an email, no response. I gave a seven day deadline and finally got an email from a relative of the lawyer landlady on the final day. Apparently she is 'out of the country' and won't be back 'for a while' according to her sister who collected her mail. She promises to speak with her to relay my message.

I hear nothing for another week then decide to send the same letter again via courier, plus a cover letter stating that legal action will be taken to recover my deposit plus overpaid rent.

A few days pass and I FINALLY get a snotty email from the landlady stating that she is 'disgusted' at my attitude and that I am no longer to contact her by phone, mail, email, letter or whatever as she has handed the responsibility over to her sister who actually owns the property. (She was acting on her behalf originally)

On the same day I get an email from said sister who is the homeowner. She too expresses 'disgust' at me for my 'attitude'. Now I'm really confused. All I've done is write a formal letter - polite but firm - expressing a desire to recover my money. Is this some form of stalling/distraction technique or what?

She promises to refund my overpaid rent within a few days (this turns out to be almost two weeks - money has only just gone into my account today, but at least I got some of it back!!!!) and settle the deposit issue in due course. I asked for the cleaning invoices and she asked me to 'bear with her' as she too was out of the country and 'someone was handling things on her behalf'. Well that's just great....

She talks of an issue with a 'leak' in the house which I have no knowledge of. I ask her to clarify and she ignores the question, just asks me to bear with her. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but surely everything must be fine with the property, otherwise she wouldn't have re-let it? I also fail to see what any 'leak' has to do with me anyhow!!? I've been out of that place for three months!:mad:

What should be my next move?
Do I propose a timeframe for her to refund my deposit? If so, what is a reasonable timescale? If I don't get a result do I attempt to get my money back via small claims court from her as the homeowner, or her sister who is the lawyer who I signed the contract with? (who doesn't want to hear from me again - feeling is mutual!)

All advice welcomed with open ears...

Alan_M_2

Issue small claims, their "Disgust" is a stalling tactic.

Make it clear if any contact is now made it will only be to accept your deposit back in full less any reasonable cleaning expenses accompnied by relevant invoices (dated at the time- which can be checked).

Don't put up with the bullsh1t any longer, this kind of thing makes my blood boil, who do these people think they are? 7 days is reasonable for a deposit return, 3 months is grossly unreasoanable.

I'm sure they have the ability to conduct the rest of their lives whilst they're out of the country.

Do not even give them the courtesy of a letter or email telling them you are issuing, just issue. (against the person with whom you had the contract).