Continuing saga of my spiteful landlord

fitter2000

Stujclark wrote: »

Why not just pay a letting agent to replace you as tenants? it will cost max 2 weeks rent, as long as its for the same rent and doesn't end up costing the landlord anything, then there's no way he won't agree. His option is to wait until you move out, have a property empty for a month until new tenants are found.

Contact the same agent he used to find you, they will jump at the chance and contact the landlord. You pay rent until the new tenants found, pay the agents fees, will cost you less than letting it run and landlord isn't financially out of pocket and has a new 12 month tenancy without any void periods.

You may want to read all of this and other threads about it too
(this is the problem with more than one thread on a subject)

Neil

tim123456789

N79 wrote: »

AST/Non AST: You state somewhere many posts ago that you have signed an AST on a new property. There is a contradiction here. Section 1 (1) b of the Housing Act 1988 requires an AST to be the Tenants principle home and a tenancy only remains an AST while this is the case. So in fact, when your new home becomes your "principle home", which is clearly the case, then your old tenancy is no longer an AST.

No, it cannot be right that the status of the tenancy, as viewed from the LL, changes because the tenant enters into a new tenancy with someone else (or buys a house).

If the tenancy passed the tests of being an AST when T entered into the agreement it will remain so regardless of what actions T takes later. Anything else would just not be (legally) fair on the LL.

tim123456789

Stujclark wrote: »

Why not just pay a letting agent to replace you as tenants?

Because LL wont allow T to do this.

Stujclark

tim123456789 wrote: »

Because LL wont allow T to do this.

Well, that is very strange, pathetic really, I cant believe that to be honest, how have you approached the landlord about it? is there animosity between the two of you?

Personally, the only thing I can see here is this, he is trying to get you to say to him, keep the deposit by refusing early release, he wants the deposit of 3 X and then release you from the tenancy early, and he probably has other tenants sitting and waiting to move in. That's the only plausible reason I can think of.

Stujclark

On the other points:
The fact that you've signed another AST is just totally and utterly irrelevant.

The thing is, you have entered into an agreement, and, unless the landlord has broken the law or his agreement with you then you have to abide by that agreement, in the same way that a landlord couldn't just cancel everything if his situation changed.

The agreement is there to protect both parties, I am certain if the landlord started a thread giving his side, there would be as many other landlords backing him as there are tenants for you in this thread.

Just because your circumstances change doesn't give you an automatic release from your responsibilities in that agreement, regardless of how childish the landlord is being.

But as I said, he wants your deposit, I am certain of that.

[Deleted User]

Stujclark wrote: »

Well, that is very strange, pathetic really, I cant believe that to be honest, how have you approached the landlord about it? is there animosity between the two of you?

Personally, the only thing I can see here is this, he is trying to get you to say to him, keep the deposit by refusing early release, he wants the deposit of 3 X and then release you from the tenancy early, and he probably has other tenants sitting and waiting to move in. That's the only plausible reason I can think of.

She's offered to pay him 3 x monthly rent, in cash, to end the tenancy. He didn't agree. She has 5 previous threads about this, she's been exceptionally reasonable, here they are if you want to read through the saga.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4455165
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4455937
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4457689
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4466011
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4469357
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4509567
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4524325

Although the landlord is within his rights to behave like this, he's been a massive nob and sussexchick has been exceptionally reasonable. If I was a landlord I'd be falling over myself to have a tenant as reasonable as her...

rpc

Stujclark wrote: »

Well, that is very strange, pathetic really, I cant believe that to be honest, how have you approached the landlord about it?

You should perhaps read the thread before commenting. This has been covered.

And no, the LL will not allow a surrender under any circumstances. OP has made some (IMHO) very generous offers and the LL doesn't care.

His view may change when he can certainly have some money from OP or alternatively maybe get some money if he goes to court.

I believe N79 is (surprisingly) correct about the change in tenancy status.

A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured tenancy if and so long as—
(a)the tenant or, as the case may be, each of the joint tenants is an individual; and
(b)the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; and
(c)the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (6) below, cannot be an assured tenancy.

This clearly ("so long as") requires ongoing occupation as a principal home in order to maintain the tenancy as an AST. As soon as that changes, it must cease to be an AST by virtue of this subsection. If the intention was that this condition only be met at the commencement of the tenancy, it would be worded differently.

Stujclark

OK OK lol fair enough, just cant believe it to be honest, gobsmacked, there has to be more to it, there has to be, in my 20 years involved in residential lettings, never have I known a decision like that from a landlord, something is not quite right here.

tim123456789

Stujclark wrote: »

OK OK lol fair enough, just cant believe it to be honest, gobsmacked, there has to be more to it, there has to be, in my 20 years involved in residential lettings, never have I known a decision like that from a landlord, something is not quite right here.

amateur LL

Stujclark

rpc wrote: »

I believe N79 is (surprisingly) correct about the change in tenancy status.

This clearly ("so long as") requires ongoing occupation as a principal home in order to maintain the tenancy as an AST. As soon as that changes, it must cease to be an AST by virtue of this subsection. If the intention was that this condition only be met at the commencement of the tenancy, it would be worded differently.

Is it being suggested the tenant goes down this route?

The tenant does not want it to be anything else OTHER than an AST, if it ceases to become and AST, the tenant loses all the rights an AST provides for example, the deposit doesn't need protecting anymore, and many other things, so I would never ever go down that route if it is being suggested as such.

If it ceases to be an AST, then so does the protection with which an AST brings, especially bad for a tenant.