Small Claims Court Shorthold Tenancy

arsenalboy

A few questions. I am not going to go into great details just the headlines.

My son is one of 5 students in a student house with a private landlord at University. All the parents feel the landlord has acted badly in allowing major building work (building new extension with kitchen) to run ino the first 5 weeks of occupancy and leaving no facilities.
Landlord has refunded some rent but we think he should pay more back.
Okay questions.
Can 5 sets of parents be party to one Small claims action or does there need to be 5 different actions? There is just one agreement covering all 5 students.
If one action will suffice, presumably all the parents would have to appoint one of themselves to take it forward?

I have always thought the beauty of using small claims court is that you don't pay other party costs even if you lose.
The landlord says he will appoint a solicitor to represent him and as he thinks he is being reasonable he states he will win. He states if he wins the judge will also think he is reasonable and we will be asked to pay his solicitors costs?

Anybody got any views on these 3 questions?

many thanks

mynameisdave

I dont think the parents can bring the action at all. The tenants can, but not the parents.

How much of the rent has he returned, and how much do you think he should return? What facilities were unavailable?

arsenalboy

presumably then the 5 students are named but they can appoint one of the parents to take the action and appear on their behalf?

So the original question of whether 5 sets of parents can take action in one go, is now can 5 sets of students take action in one go?

arcon5

The landlord is unlikely to be awarded legal fees in a small claims action.

Any rent rebate would depend on what portion of the property was unavailable to them and for how long. So what facilities are unavailable and what proportion has the landlord agreed to return? Any compensation would depend on the inconvenience caused and whether the landlord acted reasonably in getting the work done. So what do you mean by "allowing" the work to run into the tenancy period? Seems odd any landlord would want this or actively allow it where it's within their control.....

I don't see what difference it would make whether there is 5 tenants as part of the claim or one person? It would be dealt with and judged for/against based on the evidence and information provided. But I imagine the case would need to be Tenant A versus Landlord for which I imagine each tenant will be individually listed on the tenancy agreement.

arsenalboy

Okay, the tenancy agreement was signed back in February giving them access from 1st Sept. Landlord said he would be ripping out kitchen and building a new extension.
To cut a long story short the property was not available until 24th sept and then there was no kitchen or shower facility. Only facilities were bedrooms, microwave and cold water/wc. The kitchen was finally commissioned at end of October. An electric shower was available 1st week in Oct and central heating mid october.
Landlord has said as Uni didn't start until end of Sept it was irrelevant that they couldn't occupy even though paying rent.
He has offered one months rent back for October and states that is reasonable.
As parents we are asking for 2 months as this would take into account additional costs of eating out and using launderettes etc, together with costs of journies home at weekends due to the house not being a happly place to be.

NCISROCKS

So you want a 100% refund for the 2 months and have been offered 50%. I think the Landlord is being reasonable here and you are not.

arcon5

What do you mean the property wasn't available until the 24th September? Do you mean the tenant chose not to live there or that the landlord denied access? If the latter i'd expect a 100% rebate for this period, if you incurred any reasonable costs as a result above the value of this rebate then you may have a case to recover those. For example, if during the 3 weeks you received back £300, if costs incurred was £400 then £100 expenses. Note I say 'reasonable', eating out where not necessary is a luxury and not reasonable to expect the landlord to pay for.

For the period without full kitchen facilities, i'd expect 50-60%.

Thats just my opinion though, a judge may see it differently.

arsenalboy

Is the landlord being reasonable in denying access until 24th Sept but still insisting on rent from the 1st Sept?

arcon5

arsenalboy wrote: »

Is the landlord being reasonable in denying access until 24th Sept but still insisting on rent from the 1st Sept?

It could depend how the landlord forms his/her defence really, for example:

- 50% off month 1 + 2; since you had no access for 3 weeks a judge may consider this unreasonable

or

- first 3 weeks free + 25% discount on month 2 which has limited resources.

Although both are effectively the same, the latter seems fairer. So it's whether a judge would deem 25% fair or not, personally with it being something as significant as a kitchen i'd be looking for closer to 50% of the second month.

Maybe take a look at the maths, come to a compromise and make a settlement offer with the landlord? based on the fact its a shared student accomodation, the difference in refund i'm thinking to be about £100-£130? So it would come down to whether its worth the hassle and expense and perhaps risk of persuing it. (£35 to file; £55 hearing fee -- if you win he will be ordered to pay costs though, otherwise your at a loss).

Just my thoughts anyway

NCISROCKS

arcon5 wrote: »

It could depend how the landlord forms his/her defence really, for example:

- 50% off month 1 + 2; since you had no access for 3 weeks a judge may consider this unreasonable

or

- first 3 weeks free + 25% discount on month 2 which has limited resources.

Although both are effectively the same, the latter seems fairer. So it's whether a judge would deem 25% fair or not, personally with it being something as significant as a kitchen i'd be looking for closer to 50% of the second month.

Maybe take a look at the maths, come to a compromise and make a settlement offer with the landlord? based on the fact its a shared student accomodation, the difference in refund i'm thinking to be about £100-£130? So it would come down to whether its worth the hassle and expense and perhaps risk of persuing it. (£35 to file; £55 hearing fee -- if you win he will be ordered to pay costs though, otherwise your at a loss).

Just my thoughts anyway

I think 25% for no kitchen is a fairer amount. There was a microwave that could be used.

arcon5

NCISROCKS wrote: »

I think 25% for no kitchen is a fairer amount. There was a microwave that could be used.

Hmm, not sure I would agree, but it's also one of those situations that will naturally affect some much more than others so there's not really a right or wrong answer.

But nonetheless, op makes mention of several, what could be considered significant problems

- no kitchen for 4-5 weeks from the point of finally moving in
- no heating for about 3 weeks from the point of finally moving in
- no means to wash with hot water for about 2 weeks from the point of finally moving in

The fact they had no hot water or means to sanitise in itself could in theory mean the property is classed an uninhabitable, which infact could carry a rebate much greater than 50% if the landlord didn't act reasonably in rectifying the problem.

The above issues combined with the fact the landlord denied them access for the first 3 weeks, unless the landlord could show it to be a result of mitigating circumstances, could be as a whole deemed unreasonable. Especially considering the landlord is likely to be in breach of contract by denying the tenant access.