Letting agent not completing fairs: grounds to leave?

tbs624

G_M wrote: »

...It's a fair point though not an area I know much about never having come across a case where a repudiatory breach of the contract was upheld.

Have a look at Hussein & Others v Mehlman [1992] link

BitterAndTwisted

BeardedWonder wrote: »

Thanks GM. I signed for 12 months (allowed myself to be pushed into this.. I was desperate). No break clause in the contract so am I relying on the agent's goodwill, and realistically finding a new tenant, if I want to leave before the 12 months is up?

Why do you keep referring to the agent? An agent is a mere conduit, an intermediary between you and the landlord.

It would be in the landlord's gift to agree to a mutual surrender. This prospect would be made much more attractive if you agreed to cover all of the landlord's expenses in finding a replacement tenant. Agents generally charge a landlord a fair whack in tenant-finding fees, so it won't be cheap. And you should balance all that potential expense against your own costs in securing alternative accommodation. Like moving costs, new referencing fees, another deposit pending return of the current one etcetera. It would probably be cheaper and less troublesome in the long run to firmly chase up the repairs to the heating-system. This is part of the landlord's statutory repairing obligations so they shouldn't be fobbing you off, especially if you are polite but assertive

olly300

geoffken wrote: »

.
Email is not writing in law.

If you want to do things properly do things properly.
IN WRITING !!!!

Actually emails are writing in law.

I had a legal case where emails were written evidence and helped in three other cases where emails were also written evidence before four different judges in three different types of courts.

Likewise you will find that the regulators will use emails as part of evidence of a failing.

For an email to be used it needs to be clear who the parties are. So the full names of both parties needs to be used plus the address of at least yourself.

The issue with using emails is that there is no proof of delivery if the other party doesn't acknowledge it and it's a one off.

So regulators prefer you to send letters by recorded delivery as both they and judges have to give the other party the benefit of the doubt if they say they didn't receive a one off email.

BTW I forgot to add I was in the process of taking a landlord to court over my deposit. One of their complaints is that I didn't tell them about a housing repair. I had my email with pictures and their acknowledgements to the conversation with their full name on it.

G_M

tbs624 wrote: »

Have a look at Hussein & Others v Mehlman [1992] link

Thanks tbs.

However
1) link broken
2) I can see that H v M relates to the subject, but cannot find the case itself, only references to it, which provide no detail (and indeed are Hong Kong / Irish based!)
3) I seem to recall you referring me to this case previously now that I'm looking for it. On that occassion I was also unableto find any detail.

What's needed for the purposes of giving advice (sorry - suggestions!) on the forum here, is some detailed understanding of

a) the kind/severity of repairing breach that would justify repudiation and
b) what action a tenant would need to take in order to end a tenancy in these situations - presumably :

Dear Mr LL, you have failed to repair the thermostat control which I reported faulty two days ago so here are the keys, I am vacating the property, and the tenancy is ended.

would not suffice. But what would?

Yorkie1

Alternative link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/1992/1.html

G_M

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think the advice is incorrect in that it is too definite.

Failures by landlords to meet their obligations might, in some circumstances, be a repudiatory breach of the contract, such that the tenant is entitled to accept the breach as ending the contract.

Thanks again, ndgirl, tbs & yorkie.

Having read Hussein & Others v Mehlman [1992], I conclude:

1) It is a county court judgement so not binding on other cases
2) It does confirm the principle (subject to 1 above) that a tenancy is subject to contract law & therefore repudiatory breach of a contract of letting is legally possible.
3) It states that the breach must be of a fundamental term of the contract, and of a sufficiently fundamental character to amount to repudiation
4) The breach in the case was severe, & constituted:
the space heating installation, the plaster ceiling to one of the rooms, the flat roof of a rear extension, the failure of the water pipes and dampness in a hall wall, a bedroom had been made uninhabitable by the collapse of its ceiling: cold and dirt were being carried from there into the rest of the house; the sitting-room was letting in rainwater and part of its ceiling was bulging dangerously; the outside toilet was unusable and the hall wall was affected by damp. This situation was not improved by the ill-fitting doors and windows and the effects of the burst pipes.
5) The Landlord had refused repeatedly to repair, over the period August 1990 to March 1991, through the winter. He had amply demonstrated that this was not due to .. logistical difficulties with builders: it was due to the intention .. to put not a penny back into the house and, if necessary, to let the tenants suffer hardship
6) Environmental Health, and a surveyor, had both produced reports that the landlord ignored (though the judge did not relay on the EH Officer’s report).

I'm not a lawyer of course, so this is an amateur's crude resume, but I shall add the concept into my
Ending/Renewing an AST (...How can a tenant end a tenancy?) post, along with some suitable caveat about the legal complexity, and uncertainty, & need for professional advice.

:beer:

ValHaller

[QUOTE=G_M;61195603

I'm not a lwayer of course, so this is an amateur's crude resume, but I shall add the concept into my
Ending/Renewing an AST (...How can a tenant end a tenancy?) post, along with some suitable caveat about the legal complexity, and uncertainty, & need for professional advice.[/QUOTE]
There is also 'frustration' to consider.

You are right, these need caveating - they will be thankfully rare and I think we will be telling people that they don't have a repudiatory breach or it is not frustration far more times than we are telling them that it is.

It is a bit of a minefield - with frustration, we saw a case here recently IIRC where it appeared that whether the contract was frustrated could depend on the amount of the AST left to run - ie serve a S21 and suddenly, you could have frustration, whereas within a fixed term, there would be time to rrepair. Similarly, with a repudiatory breach, while it is generally clear enough what it is, the degree of disrepair required is quite a grey area.

neverdespairgirl

I'm no expert in this area of law. And it is definitely true that it needs to be a serious breach.

Hussain [1992] 2 EGLR 287, [1992] 32 EG 59, [1992] EW Misc 1 is a relevant authority, albeit only CC level. The judge, Mr. Stephen Sedley QC, went on to higher and better things - ended up in the Court of Appeal and retired not long ago.

It finds, for example:

Accordingly, I hold that when on March 18 1991 the plaintiffs vacated the house and returned the keys they were accepting the repudiatory conduct of the defendant as putting an end to the contract of letting. That they were entitled to do this at any date, not merely on a rent day, and that their forbearance to do it sooner should not count against them is established by the 19th-century authorities to which I have referred. From that date, therefore, they were relieved of the obligation to pay rent, and both parties were relieved of their other obligations under the lease. The defendant was free to re-enter the premises.