Continuing saga of my spiteful landlord

[Deleted User]

Stujclark wrote: »

never have I known a decision like that from a landlord, something is not quite right here.

The way sussexchick has described the landlord (house inherited, already well off) the only conclusion seems to be that money isn't the issue for him, the issue is the time investment. He already committed to renting the house out, allocated his own time to arranging the tenancy and now he doesn't want to have to spend his time dealing with any switch in tenants or signing more contracts.

He plans to put the house up for sale in 2014 (to avoid some type of tax) so it seems likely that his plan was always: rent house out now (invest time in making that happen) -> tenant keeps house in good condition for the year (better than if it was left empty, require 0 time investment besides calling contractors if something breaks) and pays council tax etc -> tenant leaves -> sell house and avoid tax.

After everything sussexchick has done to try and mitigate any losses the landlord could incur, everything she has done to bring the landlord out on top financially, the only plausible conclusion seems to be he cares about his time and not the money... although she offered to find a new tenant and he didn't much care for that solution either...

Maybe he's vindictive and wants to prove some sort of point about how he's the one with all the power, or something.

Stujclark

citricsquid wrote: »

Maybe he's vindictive and wants to prove some sort of point about how he's the one with all the power, or something.

Power trip is the only reason, there isn't another I can think of. In my opinion, if the OP has done all she has said she has done, and she can prove it, there isn't a judge in the land that wouldn't take her side if she were to just walk away and the LL took her to court.

N79

Fair warning: this post is quite long and not really relevant to the OP (except maybe the last paragraph).

rpc wrote: »

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

Why surprisingly - are my comments that bad?

tim123456789 wrote: »

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.

As with much tenancy law, this one is a victim of subsequent changes and amendments which has muddied the water and left a mess (to mix the metaphors)

When the 1988 housing act was passed the aim was to create "assured tenancies". The common proliferation of assured shorthold tenancies only came about with the modifications made by the 1996 act as before this the creation of an AST required the serving of a S20 notice (so called because in the original unamended enactment of the 1988 housing act S20 set out the requirements for this notice) in a certain manner. If this was not done before the tenancy started then the tenancy was forever an standard assured tenancy. This was often done incorrectly - hence the simplification in 1996 (which came into force in 1997) but which had the unintended consequence of effectively killing off the assured tenancy in the private sector (unless you're a conspiracy theorist in which case you would no doubt believe this was an intended consequence of evil government colluding with evil landlords).

As an assured tenancy gives security of tenure to the T, the original aim of the 1988 housing act was to remove this protection from a T who was not using the property as their principle home. This was felt to be reasonable as the protections were there to protect tenants homes in case of non payment of rent / LL's selling etc and were not there to protect second homes / holiday homes or commercial lets.

The side effect is that this provision still applies. This is why all good AST drafts have clauses allowing the LL to recover possession on non payment of rent. Indeed, there are many threads on MSE where tenants ask questions about clauses which say the LL can gain possession after a default of rent. It is always pointed out on here that these clauses are not enforceable for ASTs and this is quite true. The reason they are included in the tenancy is to give LLs the ability to end the tenancy if they are no longer an AST. Of course a LL which has not included provision for a tenancy becoming a tenancy other than an AST could end up being somewhat stuck and would have to wait for valid grounds to service a notice to quit to exist. It very much was the intention that the actions of the T could change the type of tenancy.

One way in which an AST can become a non AST is that the tenant takes a new "principle home". In reality, this does not happen overnight so people who have a short overlap at the end of one tenancy and the beginning of another do not lose the protections of an AST. That is not the aim here and the term "principle home" allows the courts to take a pragmatic interpretation. The other common way in which an AST becomes another type of tenancy is if it meets the "business tenancy" test and becomes a commercial tenancy. Another possibility is for government legislation to retrospectively change tenancy types. (This sounds far fetched but occurred recently when the government raised the maximum rent permissible for an AST and made the changes apply retrospectively, effectively converting a number of common law tenancies into ASTs at the stroke of a pen. Of course a future legislative change could have the reverse effect.)

Stujclark wrote: »

Is it being suggested the tenant goes down this route?

The type of tenancy is determined by law based - there is no route for the tenant to go down - any changes that could happen will happen.

Stujclark wrote: »

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.

My point was that while there are decided downsides for the T it can also be good for the tenant depending on the wording of the tenancy agreement. If there is no contractual prohibition on assignment then if Housing act 1988 S15 (1) no longer applies the LL also has a problem and the T at least has a negotiation point. Of course normally Ts should simply offer to pay rent until new Ts are found plus LL's reasonable re-letting costs but that and other reasonable offers have been rebuffed here.

Stujclark

Lets be honest, all the above is not going to happen, not that I am saying you are wrong but I think it is a very far fetched argument indeed and stretching the law to the maximum point, I cant imagine a court listening to that argument in this case.

When I meant "route to go down" I meant, the worse thing a tenant could do is to start claiming her AST is no longer an AST as the benefits for the landlord of that happening, far outweigh any benefits for the tenant.

If she starts to use that as an argument as to why the tenancy should end then, she is seriously at risk financially, with the deposit protection being the main concern.

Sounds like the landlord is just a strange one, or, there is more to this than we know.

envo80

I don't think this point has been made elsewhere in the thread, but, (and it may or may not be relevant to the OP), since 1st April, legal aid is no longer available for housing problems unless:
there’s serious disrepair in your home;
you’re homeless;
you’re being evicted from your home; or
the council is taking action against you because of anti-social behaviour.

rpc

Stujclark wrote: »

Lets be honest, all the above is not going to happen, not that I am saying you are wrong but I think it is a very far fetched argument indeed and stretching the law to the maximum point, I cant imagine a court listening to that argument in this case.

When I meant "route to go down" I meant, the worse thing a tenant could do is to start claiming her AST is no longer an AST as the benefits for the landlord of that happening, far outweigh any benefits for the tenant.

Why? If the LL serves a S8 or S21 then it has to be valid.

If I was a LL and received information that not only was my T about to stop paying rent, I had no legal options available to evict them then I would certainly be worried. Given OP has offered up 3 months rent, losing the deposit is probably not a massive worry.

The argument is not far fetched and does not stretch the law. The law is written clearly and unambiguously. Courts DO listen to arguments about tenancy types and notice validity - ask any Scots landlord who once forgot to serve an AT5... (failure to serve an AT5 prior to the start of the tenancy creates an assured tenancy, not a short assured tenancy)

N79 - my surprise is that a change in circumstances for the T materially changes the nature of the contract with the LL and there is nothing the LL can do about it. The law does seem clear on this, though.

From a distance, my reading is the the LL is lazy and thinks that if he says "no" all the time then he can sit back and collect rent. OP needs to make him wake up and smell the roses.

DaftyDuck

rpc wrote: »

...
...
From a distance, my reading is the the LL is lazy and thinks that if he says "no" all the time then he can sit back and collect rent. OP needs to make him wake up and smell the roses.

Simplistically, that's my take on it. The LL believes he's got a year's worth of rent coming, and believes sussexchick can do nothing, so why should he bother to do anything. She's come across here as more-or-less honest, has offered various ways to mitigate the LL potential losses, while most tenants would just leave - with no forwarding address!

If he feels that he's about to lose heavily, then taking up one of her offers will soon become a lot more appealing.

Just my simple take. I certainly don't have a tenth of the knowledge of m'learned Forum Colleagues but, as a landlord, that's the take on it I'd probably have. .... "she'll probably end up paying anyway, so why bother to accept a lesser offer"... Change that perception, and he might shift...

Stujclark

rpc wrote: »

Why? If the LL serves a S8 or S21 then it has to be valid.

If I was a LL and received information that not only was my T about to stop paying rent, I had no legal options available to evict them then I would certainly be worried. Given OP has offered up 3 months rent, losing the deposit is probably not a massive worry.

The argument is not far fetched and does not stretch the law. The law is written clearly and unambiguously. Courts DO listen to arguments about tenancy types and notice validity - ask any Scots landlord who once forgot to serve an AT5... (failure to serve an AT5 prior to the start of the tenancy creates an assured tenancy, not a short assured tenancy).

So what you are saying is, every single AST can be invalidated just by the tenant making another abode their new main residence as long as they can prove it?? I'd love to see it tested myself, and if you were right then the whole law would need changing otherwise terms on an AST become pointless for a landlord.

franklee

Stujclark wrote: »

Power trip is the only reason, there isn't another I can think of.

If we're speculating about the landlord's motives, my guess is the landlord wants to keep the property empty whist at the same time having rent coming in so that he can use the time to have viewings for a sale. If he allows a new tenant to occupy then viewings become much harder, the tenant can refuse them, may live in a mess etc. Or perhaps the landlord intends to renovate ready for sale while still collecting rent.

If it were me I'd put in writing that all viewings, decorating etc. are refused while the landlord insists on the tenancy continuing. I would write that I'd consider any use the landlord makes of the property at all as the landlord has taken the property back and ended the tenancy. The problem is if the tenant hands the keys back and moves miles away how will she know if the landlord is using the property? She could ask the neighbours to report.

The downside of this plan is the tenant will still clearly owe rent as there will be no chance the tenancy is over. Arguably the tenant owes the rent anyway. This is why I'd change the locks and exclude the landlord if he refuses to let the tenancy end. That together with a missed rent payment may focus the landlord's mind that he can't have his cake (rent) and eat it (renovate/sell).

sussexchick

hello all

Just want to start off saying how grateful I am to you all for your brilliant and informative comments and posts. Your advice has been superb and I am overwhelmed by your continued support.

OK, the past week has been somewhat challenging for me. The stress and worry finally caught up with me and had one almighty asthma attack which resulted in being hospitalised for a number of days and nights. I am relieved to say that I am now well after receiving excellent medical care.

Now for the update on the continued problem landlord. I eventually resorted to speaking to the letting agents and asked them to speak to LL on my behalf.

So the upshot is as follows :

LL has allowed me to advertise for another tenant (that's big of him) as long as I pay. I've put a date on this so that financially I'm not any worse off.

LL has reduced the tenancy agreement by 2 months :T so I only have 4 months to pay and not six (should a tenant not come forward before then)

I have put an 'alert' on rightmove website so should he even attempt to try and sell whilst I'm not there, I'll certainly know about it !

I have enlisted the help of the local 'busy-body' to keep an eye out and ears open to any kind of activity at the premises. She'll be looking through the windows on a weekly basis (for any hint or whiff of decorating and modernisation) and she'll report back to me.

Any further suggestions before I leave in 3 weeks, greatly appreciated.

Thanks to you all

SC
x