landlord says im in arrear

plymguy82

hi well here is my problem:
i live as a a lodger and im a couple of weeks in arrears. I have lived here for a year and during the last few months of last year he was away a alot. i paid him his rent in cash as i always had and he never ever gave a reciept. However he has now said that i am 3 months in arrears from end of last year. which is not true and that i will have to pay him it or hewill go to small claims court and get them to enforce this. Can he do this as i have never had a tenancy agreement or rent book from him and always paid in cash. I am moving out to stay at my gf's house so i can pay back my debts which i have already started. 3 gone already. Any help will be appreciated

plymguy82

3 gone means i have paid off 3 debts already. yes the landlord has lived here all the time and and he has let himself in my room on a few occasions. first time he said i was in arrears and i said i wasnt he said he would go in my room and take things

poppysarah

Move.
ASAP.

thesaint

It is in your interest to keep a record of the payments that you make.

If he takes you to court, the onus is on you to prove that you have made the payments, not for the landlord to prove you haven't.

BitterAndTwisted

Do you have a record of the cash-withdrawals you made from the ATM to pay him?

If he claims you are more in arrears than you think you are, ask him for a rent-statement to confirm his position.

If he can't provide you with a rent-statement he's going to have a very hard job indeed of satisfying a court that you owe him any rent at all.

maninthestreet

thesaint wrote: »

.

If he takes you to court, the onus is on you to prove that you have made the payments, not for the landlord to prove you haven't.

Are you sure on tihs point?

thesaint

maninthestreet wrote: »

Are you sure on tihs point?

How would someone prove they didn't receive something?

BitterAndTwisted

thesaint wrote: »

It is in your interest to keep a record of the payments that you make.

If he takes you to court, the onus is on you to prove that you have made the payments, not for the landlord to prove you haven't.

Actually, it's the complete opposite! The person bringing the action is the one who needs to satisfy the court of their position.

If they can't provide a rent-statement from when they started lodging to the present date, they won't have any convincing proof.

I suspect this landlord is full of bluster about court. But that doesn't change the fact that as a lodger the OP has absolutely no security of tenure and can be asked to leave with as little as 24 hours notice or less. It would be most inconvenient to return from work one day to find one's possessions packed up and left on the doorstep with no recourse whatsoever.

G_M

You are a lodger, not a tenant, so have few rights and no security.

You have an obligation topay rent, and if you don't the LL can take you to court.

The LL would have to convince the judge you had not paid. You would have to convince the judge you HAVE paid.

The judge will decide who he believes.

It is mad, stupid, risky, crazy to hand over cash for rent without a receipt, as you have now found you cannot prove you have paid.

I cannot advise further what you can do about the disputed arrears except
a) reach an agreement
b) or convince a judge

and c) move out!

thesaint

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Actually, it's the complete opposite! The person bringing the action is the one who needs to satisfy the court of their position.

If they can't provide a rent-statement from when they started lodging to the present date, they won't have any convincing proof.

Who said the landlord can't provide a rent statement?

If the landlord provides one, and the tenant provides one, does the judge ask the landlord to prove he didn't receive the rent the tenant is claiming he paid?

princeofpounds

If he takes you to court, the onus is on you to prove that you have made the payments, not for the landlord to prove you haven't.

False false false.

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability. I.e. the judge decides who has the most convincing evidence.