Is my landlord in breach of contract???

G_M

Welshwoofs wrote: »

The standard shorthold tenancy templates usually do have that clause in them about a garden. I've had that still included in my AST contracts even when I've been living in apartment blocks which had no gardens whatsoever!

If you were shown round the property by a letting agent, it could be that they didn't know the particulars very well and represented the garden as coming with the flat because it appeared that it came with the flat. Did it actually state in the advertisement details that it came with a garden? If not, then there's been a LA screw-up.....particularly as garden flats in Clapham tend to attract a damn sight more rent than ones without!

If a landlord/agent is too lazy/inefficient/unprofessional to amend their 'standard shorthold tenancy templates' to the circumstances of the property, then they have to live with the legal consequences. The tenancy agreement forms the basis of the contract. It is signed by both parties. Neither side can then 'pick and choose' which clauses they wnat to apply/not apply.

If the garden appeared to both letting agent and prospective tenant to come with the flat, and the tenancy agreement referred to garden maintenance, the question should not be
"Did it actually state in the advertisement details that it came with a garden?"
but
"Did anyone or any document actually state that it did not come with a garden?

Welshwoofs

G_M wrote: »

If a landlord/agent is too lazy/inefficient/unprofessional to amend their 'standard shorthold tenancy templates' to the circumstances of the property, then they have to live with the legal consequences.

Well naturally...unless, as in the cases I had, there was actually no garden to 'enjoy'

If the agency has screwed up (and I'd like to bet they have as most of them are next to bloody useless), then presumably the landlord will have some comeback against them. In the meantime she'll have to put up with the tenant and her dogs in the garden I guess. In her shoes I'd cancel my gardening service, rip the agency a new a-hole and look to serving notice on the tenant as soon as contractually able.

G_M

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Well naturally...unless, as in the cases I had, there was actually no garden to 'enjoy'

If the agency has screwed up (and I'd like to bet they have as most of them are next to bloody useless), then presumably the landlord will have some comeback against them. In the meantime she'll have to put up with the tenant and her dogs in the garden I guess. In her shoes I'd cancel my gardening service, rip the agency a new a-hole and look to serving notice on the tenant as soon as contractually able.

Correct. The truth is that many tenancy agreements have clauses that are either ambiguous, illegal/unenforcible, or irrelevant. In those cases, respectively, they must be interpreted by a judge (failing compromise by the parties), ignored, and ignored.

That's not the same as one side saying "Oh I didn't mean that clause to apply in this case".

Yes, the LL may have a case against the agent - but that does not alter the validity of the tenancy agreement.

may_fair

G_M wrote: »

If a landlord/agent is too lazy/inefficient/unprofessional to amend their 'standard shorthold tenancy templates' to the circumstances of the property, then they have to live with the legal consequences. The tenancy agreement forms the basis of the contract. It is signed by both parties. Neither side can then 'pick and choose' which clauses they wnat to apply/not apply.

It is not the provisions relating to garden maintenance in OP's contract which identify the extent of the rental property which is let to him; the provisions are just obligations he agrees to perform if they happen to apply. If there were no garden, the LL wouldn't be in breach of contract because the let didn't include a garden yet the contract obliged T to maintain the non-existent garden.

In a tenancy contract, the main thrust of it is that the LL agrees to grant a tenancy of a property identified in the contract, and to give the T exclusive possession of it; in return the T agrees to pay a rent. The rest of the contract is largely incidental to this core agreement.

So, what is relevant is what property the contract says that the LL agrees to let - e.g. "99 Mongoose Drive" or "Flat B, 99 Mongoose Drive" etc. not whether the contract says that T must maintain the garden (if any).

If the garden appeared to both letting agent and prospective tenant to come with the flat, and the tenancy agreement referred to garden maintenance, the question should not be
"Did it actually state in the advertisement details that it came with a garden?"
but
"Did anyone or any document actually state that it did not come with a garden?

No, the question is: 1) which part of the property is the garden attached to by law; the upstairs flat, the basement flat, or the whole house (if undivided as DVardysShadow has suggested), and 2) which part the property has been let to the tenant.