Serviced notice pursuant to section 21 of the housing act!

G_M

digitalphase wrote: »

Sorry, you take my quote a little out of context. ......

I am intrigued as to how we could have ended the agreement early. We took our tenancy agreement into CAB and they basically said there wasn't anything we could do. I am pretty sure I posted on this forum as well, asking for advice.
Obviously it is too late for this place, but would be interested to know for future reference

Edited to add: I definitely asked for advise on this forum before about ending our agreement early. You replied actually. I was also advised on that thread that after a year the contract would run on a monthly basis... Clearly some conflicting info!

You did indeed post back in November, and I did inded reply:

First, CAB are right. Always report repairs in writing.
Second, use the official address of the landlord - it should be on your contract.
Third, yes you have rights. It depends what kind of repairs you mean but read Shelter's advice here.

Seemed like good advice at the time, and still does.

RAS advised you:

OP, do not leave the tenancy until the break point unless your LL agrees in writing and agrees not to chase you for the outstanding rent.

This was good advice to but hints at the way out of a contract. There are ways it can be negotiated, but the thrust of the thread was about repairs, not about terminating the contract, so none of us went into detail on this point.

No one advised you

that after a year the contract would run on a monthly basis

The closest anyone came to this was Artful who said:

You don't have to sign a new contract: If you don't the old one rolls on, month-by-month, as a "Periodic" contract

however this was in relation to what happens at the end of a contract (ie after the 2 years, NOT what happens after the break clause (12 months).

digitalphase

So, how is it possible to end an agreement early if the landlord fails to carry out repairs that he is bound to do in his own terms and conditions?

We scoured the net and asked for advise at CAB, followed all instructions, but basically our LL ignored us. We sent a letter of about 4 pages of A4 long detailing all the issues and time scales. Someone came round, made a load of false promises, then just left it. We gave up in the end and decided we'd just get out as soon as we can. They aren't going to do any of the repairs, that is clear.

It says in the contract to inform the LL as soon as any problems arise - they just ignore it when we tell them. We've carried out our part of the agreement though by informing them.

Maybe it's best to end the thread now as I have been given the answers I was looking for, and it's just going over old ground. We will make sure we definitely only sign up for a year's contract next time, that rolls over into a monthly agreement. Lesson learned.

franklee

G_M wrote: »

So there is a break clause. We need to know the precise wording of the break clause in order to advise on your rights.

But normally this mean that by giving appropriate notice (eg at the 10 month point) either side can end (yes end, not switch to periodic) the tenancy after 12 months. If the break clause is not invoked, then both sides are commited to (and have security for) a further 12 months. That's why it's a 2 year contract. Otherwise it might as well be a 1 year contract which then reverts to periodic.

The landlord has chosen to invoke the break clause. He has this absolute right, just as you do.

The landlord evoking the break clause would end the fixed term when the landlord's notice says but where I differ from you is that if the tenant doesn't leave then I think a periodic tenancy does arise. After all the tenant is still the tenant, the fixed term ends due to the LL's notice, we still have the tenancy in place - it's a periodic tenancy that arises when a fixed term ends and the tenant is still in occupation (and the tenant hasn't given notice). digitalphase you may wish to double check this detail when the landlord evokes a break clause somewhere like landlordzone.

The landlord can, if he'd served an S21 (either as the notice to evoke the break clause or as a separate notice depending on what the break clause requires) and the S21 notice is up, then seek possession through the courts as already described. However whist awaiting possession proceedings, as it's a periodic tenancy, I'd have thought the tenant can give the usual periodic tenancy type one months notice to leave.

As said, if the landlord hadn't evoked the break clause then the tenant would need to give whatever notice the break clause requires when the break clause allows or stick it out till the end of the fixed term.

digitalphase wrote: »

So, how is it possible to end an agreement early if the landlord fails to carry out repairs that he is bound to do in his own terms and conditions?

I'm intrigued on that too. As far as I know you wouldn't have grounds to end the contract early unless the property wasn't habitable (I'm thinking fire or major flooding type of thing) and your case isn't that bad so it would be pretty impossible to end early unless the landlord agrees or you could use the break clause (which wasn't right timing back then).

digitalphase wrote: »

Maybe it's best to end the thread now as I have been given the answers I was looking for, and it's just going over old ground. We will make sure we definitely only sign up for a year's contract next time, that rolls over into a monthly agreement.

Or maybe start with six months to test the waters which can be popular with landlords too. You can always ask for your preference but it also depends on what the landlord is offering and will agree to. Break clauses are tricky so it's good to read those closely and even then they are often badly worded to as to be ambiguous.

I hope it all works out for you

N79

digitalphase wrote: »

So, how is it possible to end an agreement early if the landlord fails to carry out repairs that he is bound to do in his own terms and conditions?

franklee wrote: »

I'm intrigued on that too. As far as I know you wouldn't have grounds to end the contract early unless the property wasn't habitable (I'm thinking fire or major flooding type of thing) and your case isn't that bad so it would be pretty impossible to end early unless the landlord agrees or you could use the break clause (which wasn't right timing back then).

Franklee's answer is more or less correct. In a nutshell, there is no right to end the contract if the LL fails to carry out repairs as the remedy for a breach of contract is damages, not voiding the contract. Unfortunately, it is usually very hard for a T to prove actual, quantifiable damages.

The only route out is the doctrine of frustration (or impossibility). This is the situation that Franklee alludes to when talking about the property being uninhabitable. However, the doctrine of frustration is intended to be an extreme remedy in very unusual conditions (and is actually a very recent addition to English law).

For example, if the LL provides alternative temporary accommodation in such cases then, even if the accommodation is not really suitable, it is hard to see the doctrine of frustration applying (annoying to the T). Even if there is no alternative accommodation the court could to simply demand the LL source some rather than frustrating the contract, although individual courts will obviously reach different conclusions (annoying to the LL).

What normally occurs in extreme cases such as fire or flood is that the LL and T agree to surrender the tenancy as this is mutually beneficial to both parties (T gets to source appropriate new accommodation and LL can get on with repairs rather than worrying about fulfilling their obligations).

The background:

The doctrine of frustration dates fully only to the early 1940s when it was given a statutory basis (although courts started playing with the idea in 1863) and the date gives an idea of the "extreme" circumstances in which it is expected to apply. The statutory origin revolves around a company which contracted in the late 1930s to supply arms to Germany (I was always taught it was tanks but my teacher would not be able to tell a tank from a plane so lets just stick with arms!) in the early 1940s. Then the situation changed and parliament passed an law allowing these contracts to be "frustrated" (Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943).

One of the most relevant cases for LL's and T's is the first case from 1863 which established the doctrine of impossibility (rather than frustration) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1863/J1.html)
although it applicability depends on showing an implied condition leading to a conclusion beyond a mere lease. Wikipedia provides a reasonable summary of the need to show this implied condition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v_Caldwell

In the residential lettings case there would be a need to show that the purpose is the letting of a specific property rather than the general letting of a home. In Taylor v Caldwell this was shown by the fact that acts were booked etc. It could be harder to show for a "bog standard semi" and, in my view, impossible unless the property has been completely destroyed / rendered totally uninhabitable for the medium term. An example of this test can be found in Herne Bay Steamboat vs Hutton where a steamboat was chartered to sail around a Royal Navy review. The review was canceled but the court ruled that the cruise could still go ahead, albeit with no purpose, so the high bar for frustration was not reached.

PS: I'm happy for any lawyers posting here to correct the above!

digitalphase

Thanks both of you. I also didn't think we had a chance of ending the contract early, as I did quite a lot of research to see if we could. It is a sad thing that the LL has all the power and basically once we're in a house, that's all, no rights. Downside of renting.

We will try and get another 6 month contract as this is so much better, but it seems to be the norm around here now to do 12mths minimum. We will certainly say that we want a month-by-month contract afterwards. Though HOPEFULLY the next place we move to we will be happy there, and stay there for a long time. We'd still be in our first home together as we loved that house, but the neighbours next door were a nightmare. Now we have the opposite problem, our neighbours are lovely but the house itself is carp! I've rung about a house to view today, so hopefully we can at least arrange a viewing. Maybe it will be the one and all this worrying is for nothing? Downside is it's slightly higher rent....

So, should we sign this form thing to say that we agree to end the tenancy in April? We had better I suppose as we certainly don't want to be tied into living here for another year :eek:

evoke

franklee wrote: »

LOL I was responding from when you wrote "And what has you being pregnant got to do with the S21 notice? Exactly nothing." so I wanted to point out being pregnant may be relevant depending on the dates especially given the date of the notice is pretty close to the baby's due date from the OP (my bolding):



So I read that as digitalphase wanted to move but by March at the latest or if that's not possible after the birth thus avoiding having to move too near to the birth. So if it comes down it exceptional hardship may be of use and telling us about the pregnancy was of relevance. Hope that clarifies

LOL.

So we're back to my original point then. The OP is fully intending to use her pregnancy to have her cake and eat it too. The real fact is that she simply doesn't like the property she's living in at the moment. But she'll use the pregnancy argument to get her way of timing the move when it suits her.

You couldn't make it up.

tiny_tear

apologies
i was having a rough time
this won't happen again

evoke

digitalphase wrote: »

Why do you have such a problem with pregnant women?

Because they use their pregnancy to elicit sympathy and to get their way when all else fails.

They are Prima Donnas of the highest order and only think about themselves.

There must be a switch in the human female brain that makes them become self-centred, self-important and brash shortly after becoming inseminated.

The same happens in the wilder animal kingdom (we are also animals, after all). Jeez, some of the females in the spider world even eat the blokes that inseminate them!

LOL.

Eton_Rifle

digitalphase wrote: »

however we don't want to feel pushed out and have to rush

can they chuck us out after April, if we still haven't found anywhere?

Yes I did read your post, perhaps you should have done too as these words are those to which I addressed my replies.

You say you want to leave but you want to do it on your terms, right?
That's the situation I'm advising you on, if you only had the good grace to listen to people who know more than you, who have been in your situation many times and are trying to help you.

So, despite your incredibly rude and charmless replies, I'm still trying to help you by telling you that you should have and possibly still can, negotiate for an appropriate end-date to your lease since you have known for several months that this will be a vulnerable and inconvenient time for you.

tbs624

evoke wrote: »

Because they use their pregnancy to elicit sympathy and to get their way when all else fails.

They are Prima Donnas of the highest order and only think about themselves.

There must be a switch in the human female brain that makes them become self-centred, self-important and brash shortly after becoming inseminated.

The same happens in the wilder animal kingdom (we are also animals, after all). Jeez, some of the females in the spider world even eat the blokes that inseminate them!

LOL.

Do you spend a lot of time alone Evoke?

I guess if you were a spider, the female would leave you alone: the evident bitterness probably makes you rather unpalatable.