LL's or Letting Agents - Help needed re: unusable garage!

may_fair

jjlandlord wrote: »

If nothing is inventoried, there is no way to prove exactly what's there and in which original condition...

There is no way of knowing what evidence the LL might have of what's in the garage. I wouldn't rely on the lack of inventory to get OP off the hook should he dispose of LL's goods without giving notice etc.

taxsaver

I agree with Mallotum X, forcing the LL to move those possessions and thereby incur costs for so doing, plus ongoing storage costs thereafter is a sure fire way of getting a S21 notice served on you.

They are abroad and have let their house while away; to them storing a few things in a garage loft seems entirely reasonable and to be doing no harm. Even though you might legally be in the right, do you really want to go down this road.... maybe try to put yourself in their shoes when considering this?

jjlandlord

may_fair wrote: »

There is no way of knowing what evidence the LL might have of what's in the garage. I wouldn't rely on the lack of inventory to get OP off the hook should he dispose of LL's goods without giving notice etc.

I was commenting on OP's worry re. damaging stuff. In any case the lack of inventory means that there is no proof of what was there and in what condition when OP took possession of the property.
Obviously that does not mean that OP can freely dispose of anything, but it does mean that he should not be too worried about the condition of these items.

taxsaver wrote: »

They are abroad and have let their house while away; to them storing a few things in a garage loft seems entirely reasonable and to be doing no harm. Even though you might legally be in the right, do you really want to go down this road.... maybe try to put yourself in their shoes when considering this?

It would be reasonable for the landlord to do that if the property was advertised accordingly and the garage not part of the lease.
At the moment OP is paying for the privilege of being a storage facility for his landlord!

prudryden

Based on what you have stated so far, there is a possiblility that the implied use of the garage makes for a quasi-contract. This may mean that you would have to prove that the landlord had knowledge that you wanted use of the garage for storage specifically in the loft area.

Benji

prudryden wrote: »

Based on what you have stated so far, there is a possiblility that the implied use of the garage makes for a quasi-contract. This may mean that you would have to prove that the landlord had knowledge that you wanted use of the garage for storage specifically in the loft area.

Surely irelevant unless the garage is specifically excluded from the demised area. Tenant has exclusive use otherwise.

may_fair

prudryden wrote: »

Based on what you have stated so far, there is a possiblility that the implied use of the garage makes for a quasi-contract. This may mean that you would have to prove that the landlord had knowledge that you wanted use of the garage for storage specifically in the loft area.

If the garage is part of the demise, and is not specifically excluded in the contract, then it's included in the let - all of it.

And what on earth is a 'quasi-contract'?

prudryden

may_fair wrote: »

If the garage is part of the demise, and is not specifically excluded in the contract, then it's included in the let - all of it.

And what on earth is a 'quasi-contract'?

Possibly you are correct, but possibly not. E.G. a rented flat with a driveway and parking spaces outside. The LL says you can use one of the spaces for the moment, but it is not in the contract. He has implied that he can remove the use of the parking space. In fact, he can actually remove the use because it has not been stated in the contract that you have that right.

Partial definition, you can read the rest by googling implied and quasi contract:

However, contracts implied in law are also known as quasi-contracts, ....
Implied terms are not stated but nevertheless form a provision of the contract.

I am not arguing for or against, only that it is more complicated than just is it excluded or is it included. You would have to have a court case first to determine which prevails, then another court case to get the LL to remove the items if it has been deemed illegal to refuse access to the loft. And it goes on and on and costs and costs.

jjlandlord

prudryden wrote: »

Possibly you are correct, but possibly not. E.G. a rented flat with a driveway and parking spaces outside.

We are talking about a house, so presumably one plot of land. If the lease agreement defines the property by its address without specifics (as is the most common case), then the whole plot of land and everything on it is included in the lease.

prudryden

jjlandlord wrote: »

We are talking about a house, so presumably one plot of land. If the lease agreement defines the property by its address without specifics (as is the most common case), then the whole plot of land and everything on it is included in the lease.

The tenant would still have to go to court to get a decision if the rental contract included the entire property or not. Then, once you have that answer, the process begins again to force action on the original decision should it go his way. Meantime, a possession order is applied for by the LL and that begins another chapter. Maybe, the property is a furnished let which would then include the furniture in the garage loft and the tenant can use it, making more space for his items.

jjlandlord

prudryden wrote: »

The tenant would still have to go to court to get a decision if the rental contract included the entire property or not.

Why? Seems to me that it would be for the landlord to go to court and prove that the agreed let did not include the garage (unless perhaps the garage is on a remote and disconnected plot as is sometimes the case).